From: Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov <listbox@...>
Date: 2006-06-29T02:50:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Unicode roadmap?


On 28-jun-2006, at 19:12, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?"
>     on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:11:39 +0900, "Austin Ziegler"  
> <halostatue@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |I have suggested to Matz that we adopt the u"string" format so  
> that we
> |have a literal constructor for Unicode strings (which is by far the
> |more common need).
>
> I am not sure how much this is more useful than usual string literals
> plus unicode encoding pragma.

Austin,  I don't understand why my strings are more "special" than  
yours and thus need subclassing, special encoding
or a special literal before them. This is by far the worst thing I  
fear - that multibyte strings are handled as being "special".
They are not special, they are the default.

With the pragma there is one thing which makes me wonder - will that  
mean that the libraries will have to check for the pragma
to do their job correctly?

-- 
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov
please send all personal mail to
me at julik.nl