On Dec 14, 9:20 am, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > >> This is intended behavior. > > > I see. That means that the behaviour in Python 1.6 to 2.6 (i.e. > > encoding the text using the repr() function (as then defined) was not > > intended behaviour? > > Sure.
"Sure" as in "sure, it was not intended behaviour"? > This behavior has not changed. It still uses repr(). > > Of course, the string type has changed in 3.0, and now uses a different > definition of repr. So was the above-reported non-crash consequence of the change of definition of repr intended? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
