From: gga <ggarra@...>
Date: 2007-08-31T17:30:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes?

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> or possible alternative in the distant future may be:
> 
>   m = "\343\201\276\343\201\244\343\202\202\343\201\250".utf8
>   m = "\343\201\276\343\201\244\343\202\202\343\201\250"u
>   m = "\343\201\276\343\201\244\343\202\202\343\201\250"e:utf8
> 

Matz, for what it's worth, the .utf8 is okay, but the other syntaxes 
seem very poor and create issues with heredocs.

# this works
m = <<EOF.utf8
\343\201\276\343\201\244\343\202\202\343\201\250
EOF

# this will probably be hard to parse properly
m = <<EOFu
\343\201\276\343\201\244\343\202\202\343\201\250
EOF

Also, at least to me, assuming a long string without a heredoc, it makes 
it hard to read (as the intent is not clear till the end).
For me, at least, it would look much more logical to have the encoding 
first:

a = u"...." or
a = utf8:""

as it makes the intent of the string more clear.  I am also not to fond 
of python's approach, but I don't think placing the encoding at the end 
is better.


-- 
Gonzalo Garramu�o
ggarra@advancedsl.com.ar

AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E
GeForce7300GT
Kubuntu Edgy