On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > See the similarity now? Both flexibly change the width used by code- > points, UTF-8 based on the code-point itself regardless of the rest of > the string, Python based on the largest code-point in the string.
No, I think we're just using the word "flexible" differently. In my view, simply being variable-width does not make an encoding "flexible" in the sense of the FSR. But I'm not going to keep repeating myself in order to argue about it. > Having watched this issue from Day One when JMF first complained about > it, I believe this is entirely about denying any benefit to ASCII users. > Had Python implemented a system identical to the current FSR except that > it added a fourth category, "all ASCII", which used an eight-byte > encoding scheme (thus making ASCII strings twice as expensive as strings > including code points from the Supplementary Multilingual Planes), JMF > would be the scheme's number one champion. I agree. In fact I made a similar observation back in December: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-December/636942.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
