On Apr 2, 8:17 pm, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > Simmons (too many Steves!), I know you're new so don't have all the history > with jmf that many > of us do, but consider that the original post was about numbers, had nothing > to do with > characters or unicode *in any way*, and yet jmf still felt the need to bring > unicode up.
Just for reference, here is the starting para of Chris' original mail that started this thread. > The Python 3 merge of int and long has effectively penalized > small-number arithmetic by removing an optimization. As we've seen > from PEP 393 strings (jmf aside), there can be huge benefits from > having a single type with multiple representations internally. Is > there value in making the int type have a machine-word optimization in > the same way? ie it mentions numbers, strings, PEP 393 *AND jmf.* So while it is true that jmf has been butting in with trollish behavior into completely unrelated threads with his unicode rants, that cannot be said for this thread. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
