>> The premise is the OP's idea that Python should switch to all UCS4 to
>> create a more pure ('ideal') situation or the idea that len(s) should
>> count codepoints (correct term?) for all builds as a matter of purity
>> even though on it would be time-costly on 16-bit builds as a matter
>> of pr
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>
> > Wrong term - code units and code points are equivalent in UTF-16 and
> > UTF-32. What you're looking for is unicode scalar values.
>
> How so? Section 2.5, UTF-16 says
>
> "code points in the supplementary planes, in the range
> U+1..U+10, ar
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (06/27/08 - 07/04/08)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
1941 open (+33) / 13165 closed (+34) / 15106 total (+67)
Open issues with patches: 607
Average
This problem was raised on the comtypes-users list
as it prevents comtypes from being imported on Python 2.6
at the moment.
http://bugs.python.org/issue3258
I'll try to find the time to step through to code to work out
what's going on, but it's inside the innards of ctypes which
I've never looke
Float methods are fine.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Is everyone agreed on a tohex/fromhex p
On 2008-07-03 21:59, Steve Holden wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2008-07-03 19:44, Terry Reedy wrote:
The premise of this thread seems to be that the majority should
suffer for the benefit of a few. That is not Python's philosophy.
In reality, most Unixes ship with UCS4 builds of Python. Win
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is everyone agreed on a tohex/fromhex pair using the C99 notation as
>> recommended in 754R?
>
> Dunno about everyone, but I'm +1 on that.
>
>
