On Mar 16, 8:56 am, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 16/03/2013 02:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Chris Angelico wrote: > > Thomas and Chris, would the two of you be kind enough to explain to > morons such as myself how all the ECMAScript stuff relates to Python's > unicode as implemented via PEP 393 as you've lost me, easily done I know. > > -- > Cheers. > > Mark Lawrence
The unicode standard is language-agnostic. Unicode implementations exist withing a language x implementation x C- compiler implementation x … -- Notice the gccs in Andriy's comparison. Do they signify? On Mar 15, 11:04 pm, Andriy Kornatskyy <andriy.kornats...@live.com> wrote: > $ python3.2 > Python 3.2.3 (default, Jun 25 2012, 22:55:05) > [GCC 4.6.3] on linux2 > $ python3.3 > Python 3.3.0 (default, Sep 29 2012, 15:35:49) > [GCC 4.7.1] on linux The number of actual python implementations is small -- 2.7, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 -- at most enlarged with wides and narrows; The number of possible implementations is large (in principle infinite) -- a small example of a point in design-space that is not explored: eg There are 17 planes x 2^16 chars in a plane < 32 x 2^16 = 2^5 x 2^16 = 2^21 ie wide unicode (including the astral planes) can fit into 21 bits ie 3 wide-chars can fit into 64 bit slot rather than 2. Is this option worth considering? Ive no idea and I would wager that no one does until some trials are done So… Coming back to your question… Checking what other languages are doing speeds up the dream->design->implement->performance-check cycle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
