On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Joshua Russo wrote:
>
>> Just one other thing. I was under the impression that x = u''
>> is equivalent to x = Unicode(''). Is that not correct? Seeing as you seem
>> to be indicating a difference between th
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Joshua Russo wrote:
> Just one other thing. I was under the impression that x = u'' is equivalent
> to x = Unicode(''). Is that not correct? Seeing as you seem to be
> indicating a difference between the unicode object and a literal.
>
>
>
Note you could answer t
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Joshua Russo wrote:
>
>> ... in fact using utf-8 string literals can cause problems in other places
>>> with code that assumes another encoding (e.g. ascii) for byte strings.
>>>
>>
>> Could you expand on thi
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Joshua Russo wrote:
> ... in fact using utf-8 string literals can cause problems in other places
>> with code that assumes another encoding (e.g. ascii) for byte strings.
>>
>
> Could you expand on this? I know that the Unicode string object has
> different method
On 19 Sep 2009, at 17:19 , Joshua Russo wrote:
>> ... in fact using utf-8 string literals can cause problems in other
>> places
>> with code that assumes another encoding (e.g. ascii) for byte
>> strings.
>>
>
> Could you expand on this? I know that the Unicode string object has
> different me
>
> ... in fact using utf-8 string literals can cause problems in other places
> with code that assumes another encoding (e.g. ascii) for byte strings.
>
Could you expand on this? I know that the Unicode string object has
different methods than standard String, but are there other scenarios where
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Joshua Russo wrote:
>
>> I was working through some regression tests and saw a scenario I thought
>> wasn't allowed/recommended. I was under the impression that if you specified
>> UTF-8 encoding at the top of
On 19 Sep 2009, at 16:31 , Karen Tracey wrote:
> Without the encoding declaration, the interpreter would not know the
> encoding of the source bytes, so would be unable (without making some
> assumption) to correctly build unicode string objects from unicode
> literals.
It doesn't even bother tr
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Joshua Russo wrote:
> I was working through some regression tests and saw a scenario I thought
> wasn't allowed/recommended. I was under the impression that if you specified
> UTF-8 encoding at the top of the file you where not suppose to use u
> decorated unicode
On 19 Sep 2009, at 15:59 , Joshua Russo wrote:
> I was working through some regression tests and saw a scenario I
> thought
> wasn't allowed/recommended. I was under the impression that if you
> specified
> UTF-8 encoding at the top of the file you where not suppose to use u
> decorated unicod
I was working through some regression tests and saw a scenario I thought
wasn't allowed/recommended. I was under the impression that if you specified
UTF-8 encoding at the top of the file you where not suppose to use u
decorated unicode static string. So instead of u'prédio' I use 'prédio' in
files
11 matches
Mail list logo
