On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/11/2012 3:02 PM, Eric Snow wrote: >> I'm thinking about this partly because of the discussion on >> python-ideas about the perceived challenges of Unicode in Python 3. > >> For instance, if frameworks (like django and numpy) could completely >> hide the arguable challenges of Unicode in Python 3--and most projects >> were built on top of frameworks--then general efforts for making >> Unicode easier in Python 3 should go toward helping framework writers. > Huh? I'll admit I'm a novice, but isn't Unicode mostly trivial in py3k > compared to 2.x? Or are you referring to porting 2.x to 3.x? I've been > under the impression that Unicode in 2.x can be painful at times, but > easy in 3.x. > I've been using 3.2 and Unicode hasn't been much of an issue.
My expectation is that yours is the common experience. However, in at least one current thread (on python-ideas) and at a variety of times in the past, _some_ people have found Unicode in Python 3 to make more work. So that got me to thinking about who's experience is the general case, and if any concerns broadly apply to more that framework/library writers (like django, jinja, twisted, etc.). Having usage statistics would be helpful in identifying the impact of things like Unicode in Python 3. -eric -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
