[Python-Dev] PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3 (original) (raw)

Ethan Furman ethan at stoneleaf.us
Tue Feb 28 00:15:59 CET 2012

Antoine Pitrou wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:09:24 -0800 Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:

Martin v. Löwis wrote:

Eh? The 2.6 version would also be u('that'). That's the whole point of the idiom. You'll need a better counter argument than that. So the idea is to convert the existing 2.6 code to use parenthesis as well? (I obviously haven't read the PEP -- my apologies.) Well, if you didn't, you wouldn't have the same sources on 2.x and 3.x. And if that was ok, you wouldn't need the u() function in 3.x at all, since plain string literals are already unicode strings there. True -- but I would rather have u'' in 2.6 and 3.3 than u('') in 2.6 and 3.3. You don't want to be 3.2-compatible?

Unfortunately I do. However, at some point 3.2 will fall off the edge of the earth and then u'' will be just fine.

This is probably a dumb question, but why can't we add u'' back to 3.2? It seems an incredibly minor change, and we are not in security-only fix stage, are we?

Ethan

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list