On 2018-07-17 08:37, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Tim Chase :
> > Wait, but now you're talking about vendors. Much of the crux of
> > this discussion has been about personal scripts that don't need to
> > marshal Unicode strings in and out of various functions/objects.
>
> In both personal and
Tim Chase :
> On 2018-07-16 23:59, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Tim Chase :
>> > While the python world has moved its efforts into improving
>> > Python3, Python2 hasn't suddenly stopped working.
>>
>> The sword of Damocles is hanging on its head. Unless a consortium is
>> erected to support
On 2018-07-16 23:59, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Tim Chase :
> > While the python world has moved its efforts into improving
> > Python3, Python2 hasn't suddenly stopped working.
>
> The sword of Damocles is hanging on its head. Unless a consortium is
> erected to support Python2, no vendor will be
On 16/07/18 21:16, Rhodri James wrote:
On 16/07/18 20:58, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/16/2018 1:27 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
90% of the world *is* "beneath my notice" when it comes to
programming for myself. I really don't care if that's not PC enough
for you.
Had you actually read my words with
On 2018-07-16 21:59, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Tim Chase :
While the python world has moved its efforts into improving Python3,
Python2 hasn't suddenly stopped working.
The sword of Damocles is hanging on its head. Unless a consortium is
erected to support Python2, no vendor will be able to use
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:32 AM, Tim Chase
wrote:
> On 2018-07-16 18:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> You say that all you want is a switch to turn off Unicode (and
>> replace it with what? Kanji strings? Cyrillic? Shift_JS? no of
>> course not, I'm being absurd -- replace it with ASCII, what else
Tim Chase :
> While the python world has moved its efforts into improving Python3,
> Python2 hasn't suddenly stopped working.
The sword of Damocles is hanging on its head. Unless a consortium is
erected to support Python2, no vendor will be able to use it in the
medium term.
Given the recent
On 2018-07-16 18:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> You say that all you want is a switch to turn off Unicode (and
> replace it with what? Kanji strings? Cyrillic? Shift_JS? no of
> course not, I'm being absurd -- replace it with ASCII, what else
> could any right-thinking person want, right?).
But we
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:16 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 16/07/18 20:58, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>> On 7/16/2018 1:27 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
>>
>>> 90% of the world *is* "beneath my notice" when it comes to programming
>>> for myself. I really don't care if that's not PC enough for you.
>>>
>>> Had
On 16/07/18 20:58, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/16/2018 1:27 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
90% of the world *is* "beneath my notice" when it comes to programming
for myself. I really don't care if that's not PC enough for you.
Had you actually read my words with *intent* rather than *reaction*,
you would
På Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:33:46 -0700
Jim Lee skrev:
> Go right ahead. I find it surprising that Stephen isn't banned,
> considering the fact that he ridicules anyone he doesn't agree with.
> But I guess he's one of the 'good 'ol boys', and so exempt from the code
> of conduct.
Well said!
--
On 7/16/2018 1:27 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
90% of the world *is* "beneath my notice" when it comes to programming
for myself. I really don't care if that's not PC enough for you.
Had you actually read my words with *intent* rather than *reaction*, you
would notice that I suggested the *option*
On 7/16/2018 1:13 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
I just think that a language should allow one to bypass Unicode handling
easily *when it's not needed*.
Both for patching IDLE and for my currently private work, I usually only
use Ascii, and no unicode escapes. When I do, it does not matter
whether
On 16/07/18 18:38, Rhodri James wrote:
Actually having an option of turning off Unicode *does* make it harder
to use, because you end up coming across programs that have Unicode and
surprise you when they misbehave. And yes I saw that 90% of your
programs aren't intended to get out into the
On 07/16/18 11:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:27:18 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
Had you actually read my words with *intent* rather than *reaction*, you
would notice that I suggested the *option* of turning off Unicode.
Yes, I know what you wrote, and I read it with intent.
On 07/16/18 10:40, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 16/07/18 18:27, Jim Lee wrote:
Obviously, the most vocal representatives of the Python community are
too sensitive about their language to enable rational discussion.
Please moderators ban this person as he's going down the same line as
bartc and
On 16/07/18 19:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'm simply not seeing the advantage of:
from __future__ import no_unicode
print("Hello World!") # stand in for any string handling on ASCII
Sure this should be "from __past__ import no_unicode"?
gd
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
--
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:27:18 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> Had you actually read my words with *intent* rather than *reaction*, you
> would notice that I suggested the *option* of turning off Unicode.
Yes, I know what you wrote, and I read it with intent.
Jim, you seem to be labouring under the
On 16/07/18 18:27, Jim Lee wrote:
90% of the world *is* "beneath my notice" when it comes to programming
for myself. I really don't care if that's not PC enough for you.
Had you actually read my words with *intent* rather than *reaction*, you
would notice that I suggested the *option* of
On 16/07/18 18:13, Jim Lee wrote:
I just think that a language should allow one to bypass Unicode handling
easily *when it's not needed*.
I have no idea what this is meant to mean. I've written loads of code
for my own purposes and I've never had to think about Unicode, so why
should
On 16/07/18 18:27, Jim Lee wrote:
Obviously, the most vocal representatives of the Python community are
too sensitive about their language to enable rational discussion.
Please moderators ban this person as he's going down the same line as
bartc and similar, it is completely unacceptable,
On 07/16/18 03:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Good for you.
But Python is not a programming language written to satisfy the needs of
people like you, and ONLY people like you.
It is a language written to satisfy the needs of people from Uzbekistan,
and China, and Japan, and India, and Brazil,
On 07/16/18 03:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But the thing is, that complexity is *inherent in the domain*. You can
try to deal with it without Unicode, and as soon as you have users
expecting to use more than one code page, you're doomed.
No, I'm not doomed, because there *are* no other
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 02:22:59 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Mark Lawrence
> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity where does my mum's Welsh come into the equation as I
>> believe that it is not recognised by the EU as a language?
>>
>>
> What characters does it use? Mostly
On 16/07/18 17:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 16/07/18 15:17, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
It may have been good
On 16/07/18 17:26, Larry Martell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 16/07/18 15:17, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
It may have been good
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 17:28:15 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> Unicode is an attempt to solve at least one I18N issue
If you're going to insist on digging your heels in and using definitions
which nobody else does, this discussion is going to go nowhere fast.
Unicode is (ideally) a universal character
On 16/07/18 17:05, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 16/07/18 15:17, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
It may have been good enough for his disciples, but Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Also,
On 16/07/18 17:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
What characters does it use? Mostly Latin letters?
Basic Latin plus U+0174 (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER W WITH CIRCUMFLEX) through
to U+0177 (LATIN SMALL LETTER Y WITH CIRCUMFLEX) I think.
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
--
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/07/18 15:17, Dan Sommers wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>> ... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
>>
>>
>> It may have been good enough for his disciples, but
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/07/18 15:17, Dan Sommers wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>> ... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
>>
>>
>> It may have been good enough for his disciples, but
On 16/07/18 15:17, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
It may have been good enough for his disciples, but Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Also, ISO-8859-7 doesn't cover ancient polytonic
> The buzzing noise you just heard was the joke whizzing past your head
> *wink*
I have twins aged four. They also like to yell "I cheated!", whenever they
are called out.
In general, you need to get rid of tat teenage brat persona you practice.
The "ranting rick" charade was especially
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:17:35 +, Dan Sommers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> ... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
>
> It may have been good enough for his disciples, but Jesus spoke Aramaic.
The buzzing noise you just
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:39:49 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> ... people who think that if ISO-8859-7 was good enough for Jesus ...
It may have been good enough for his disciples, but Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Also, ISO-8859-7 doesn't cover ancient polytonic Greek; it only covers
modern monotonic
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:02:51 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> On 07/15/18 17:17, MRAB wrote:
>> On 2018-07-16 00:10, Jim Lee wrote:
[...]
>>> Have you never heard of programming BEFORE Unicode existed?
>>>
>>> How ever did we get along?
Mostly by not exchanging data with anyone else using a different
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 17:39:55 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> On 07/15/18 17:18, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 16:08:15 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Python3 is intrinsically tied to Unicode for string handling.
>>> Therefore, the Python programmer is forced to deal with it (in all but
>>>
37 matches
Mail list logo
