On 01:07 pm, wolfgang@rohdewald.de wrote:
Am Montag, 8. September 2014, 12:04:46 schrieb
exar...@twistedmatrix.com:
PB supports unicode perfectly well and has for many years. This is
why
I asked which specific part of PB has a problem.
PB transfers names of methods and classes as bytes,
Am Montag, 8. September 2014, 12:04:46 schrieb exar...@twistedmatrix.com:
> PB supports unicode perfectly well and has for many years. This is why
> I asked which specific part of PB has a problem.
PB transfers names of methods and classes as bytes, not as unicode.
Which is logical since PY2 doe
On 11:44 am, wolfgang@rohdewald.de wrote:
Am Montag, 8. September 2014, 10:54:44 schrieb
exar...@twistedmatrix.com:
Can you point out the specific places where you think PB needs to
start
using UTF-8 instead of ASCII? Those are the places that need to be
fixed, not the underlying porting h
Am Montag, 8. September 2014, 10:54:44 schrieb exar...@twistedmatrix.com:
> Can you point out the specific places where you think PB needs to start
> using UTF-8 instead of ASCII? Those are the places that need to be
> fixed, not the underlying porting helpers they happen to use.
My question is
On 09:19 am, wolfgang@rohdewald.de wrote:
This does not seem to be supported by Python yet.
Should that be enabled at all?
If one process with PY3 sends such identifiers to
a separate process with PY2, that will fail. I am not
sure if that would be a problem, whoever uses this must
make sure
This does not seem to be supported by Python yet.
Should that be enabled at all?
If one process with PY3 sends such identifiers to
a separate process with PY2, that will fail. I am not
sure if that would be a problem, whoever uses this must
make sure PY3 is used everywhere.
If this should be for
