On 4/4/2014 5:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:38:13 -0500, Mark H Harris wrote:
On 4/1/14 5:33 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
If you narrowly meant "The python interpreter only starting using
unicode as the default text class in 3.0", then you are, in that narrow
sense, correct.
I really should have said "3.0 was the first version of Python (the
language) to specify that code and strings are unicode"
Yes. When I speak of 'python' I am almost always speaking about the
interpreter.
Which interpreter?
Since the unicode change is a language and not an interpreter issue, it
does not matter.
> Unicode is completely uninteresting to comp-sci. Whether strings
> contain 127 symbols or 1114112 or 2 is just a boring detail.
Until CS researchers want to write academic papers with non-ascii
symbols ;-).
On the python unicode continuum version (3) is more useful than
version (2). ( this is of course relative and debatable, so the
statement is rhetorical )
Now that's funny.
I agree.
> You make a completely non-controversial statement, that
Python 3's Unicode implementation is more useful (i.e. more functionally
complete, fewer design flaws, more efficient) than Python 2's, and *that*
is the claim that you smother to death in disclaimers.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
