On 19/03/2016 11:07, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote:
Unicode made several (understandable but grave) mistakes along the way:
* normalization
Elaborate please? What's such a big mistake here?
Unicode shouldn't have allowed multiple equivalent variants for a
string.
Now Python falls victim to:
>>> '\u006e\u0303' == '\u00f1'
False
<URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence>:
For example, the code point U+006E (the Latin lowercase "n") followed
by U+0303 (the combining tilde "◌̃") is defined by Unicode to be
canonically equivalent to the single code point U+00F1 (the lowercase
letter "ñ" of the Spanish alphabet). Therefore, those sequences
should be displayed in the same manner, should be treated in the same
way by applications such as alphabetizing names or searching, and may
be substituted for each other.
So a string that looks like:
"ññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ"
can have 2**50 different representations? And occupy somewhere between
50 and 200 bytes? Or is that 400?
OK...
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
