Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[Python-Dev] PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3
Chris McDonoughchrism at plope.com
Mon Feb 27 21:39:29 CET 2012
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 15:23 -0500, R. David Murray wrote:> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:50:21 -0500, Chris McDonough <chrism at plope.com> wrote:> > Currently we handle 3.2 compatibility in packages that "straddle" via> > six-like functions. We can continue doing this as necessary. If the>> It seems to me that this undermines your argument in favor of u''.> Why can't you just continue to do the above for 3.3 and beyond?I really don't know how long I'll need to do future development in thesubset language of Python 2 and Python 3 because I can't predict thefuture. It could be two years, it might be five. Who knows.But I do know that I'm going to be developing in the subset of Pythonthat currently runs on Python 2 >= 2.6 and Python 3 >= 3.2 for at leasta year. And that will suck, because that language is a much less funlanguage in which to develop than either Python 2 or Python 3. Frankly,it's a pretty bad language.If we make this change now, it means a year from now I'll be able todevelop in a slightly less sucky subset language if I choose to dropsupport for 3.2. And people who don't try to support Python 3 at alltil then will never have to program in the suckiest subset like I willhave had to.Note that u'' literals are sort of the tip of the iceberg here;supporting them will obviously not make development under the subset anorder of magnitude less sucky, just a tiny little bit less sucky. Thereare other extremely annoying things, like str(bytes) returning the reprof a bytestring on Python 3. That's almost as irritating as the absenceof u'' literals, but we have to evaluate one thing at a time.- C
More information about the Python-Devmailing list
[8]ページ先頭