On 18 juin, 12:11, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:30:50 -0700, jmfauth wrote:
> > On 18 juin, 10:28, Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kap...@case.edu> wrote:
> >> The u prefix is only there to
> >> make it easier to port a codebase from Python 2 to Python 3. It doesn't
> >> actually do anything.
>
> > It does. I shew it!
>
> Incorrect. You are assuming that Python 3 input eval's the input like
> Python 2 does. That is wrong. All you show is that the one-character
> string "a" is not equal to the four-character string "u'a'", which is
> hardly a surprise. You wouldn't expect the string "3" to equal the string
> "int('3')" would you?
>
> --
> StevenA string is a string, a "piece of text", period. I do not see why a unicode literal and an (well, I do not know how the call it) a "normal class <str>" should behave differently in code source or as an answer to an input(). Should a user write two derived functions? input_for_entering_text() and input_if_you_are_entering_a_text_as_litteral() --- Side effect from the unicode litteral reintroduction. I do not mind about this, but I expect it does work logically and correctly. And it does not. PS English is not my native language. I never know to reply to an (interro)-negative sentence. jmf -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
