On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:25 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > About two months ago I fixed the most critical bugs but the unicode free
> > build is treated like a poor cousin at best. It's neither actively
> > developed nor tested in regular intervals. IMO it's a deprecation c
> About two months ago I fixed the most critical bugs but the unicode free
> build is treated like a poor cousin at best. It's neither actively
> developed nor tested in regular intervals. IMO it's a deprecation candiate.
In the sense that 3k won't support it anymore - certainly.
In the sense t
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
> It's still intended that you can build Python 2.6 without Unicode
> support, and that the test suite "mostly" works.
>
> If it doesn't, it's up to users who care about that feature to provide
> fixes, but you should not actively break it.
About two months ago I fixed th
> The test_support unit has this have_unicode. Do we need the Python's
> test unit to be *that* backward compatible? Is there still an
> implementation of Python that doesn't support unicode? If there is,
> should the test suite care?
It's still intended that you can build Python 2.6 without Unico
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Virgil Dupras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The test_support unit has this have_unicode. Do we need the Python's
> test unit to be *that* backward compatible? Is there still an
> implementation of Python that doesn't support unicode? If there is,
> should the test s
The test_support unit has this have_unicode. Do we need the Python's
test unit to be *that* backward compatible? Is there still an
implementation of Python that doesn't support unicode? If there is,
should the test suite care?
As a side question. Considering that I'm not sure whether have_unicode
