On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:46 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I think it is typical of JMF that his idea of a language where Unicode > "just works" is one where it *does work at all* (at least not as strings).
Er, does NOT work at all. > Python 1.5 strings supported Unicode just as well as Go's string class. Since I'm replying to myself, I guess I can take the opportunity to expand on this. Go's concept of strings is, more or less, byte strings: https://blog.golang.org/strings They are handled as an array of bytes and indexing produces bytes. That's exactly the same functionality as Python strings provided in version 1.5. In fairness, Go does provide a second type, "runes", which is equivalent to Python 2.7 unicode using a wide build (i.e. equivalent to UTF-32). -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
