On 17-07-18 10:27, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info>: >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:48:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>> Who says there needs to be one. A good engineer will use the >>> definition that is most appropriate to the task at hand. Some things >>> need very solid definitions, and some things don’t. >> The the problem is solved: we have a perfectly good de facto definition >> of character: it is a synonym for "code point", and every single one of >> Marko's objections disappears. > I admit it. Python3 is the perfect medium for your codepoint delivery > needs. > > What you don't seem to understand about my objections is that no > programmer needs codepoints per se. Also, Python2's strings do as good a > job at delivering codepoints as Python3.
No they don't. The programs that I work on, need to be able to treat at least german, french, dutch and english text. My experience is that in python3 it is way easier to do things right. Especially if you are working with regular expressions. -- Antoon. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
