Le lundi 27 août 2012 22:37:03 UTC+2, (inconnu) a écrit : > Le lundi 27 août 2012 22:14:07 UTC+2, Ian a écrit : > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM, <wxjmfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > - Why int32 and not uint32? No idea, I tried to find an > > > > > > > answer without asking. > > > > > > > > > > > > UCS-4 is technically only a 31-bit encoding. The sign bit is not used, > > > > > > so the choice of int32 vs. uint32 is inconsequential. > > > > > > > > > > > > (In fact, since they made the decision to limit Unicode to the range 0 > > > > > > - 0x0010FFFF, one might even point out that the *entire high-order > > > > > > byte* as well as 3 bits of the next byte are irrelevant. Truly, > > > > > > UTF-32 is not designed for memory efficiency.) > > > > I know all this. The question is more, why not a uint32 knowing > > there are only positive code points. It seems to me more "natural".
Answer found. In short: using negative ints simplifies internal tasks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
