Shane Hathaway wrote: > I agree that UCS4 is needed. There is a balancing act here; UTF-16 is > widely used and takes less space, while UCS4 is easier to treat as an > array of characters. Maybe we can have both: unicode objects start with > an internal representation in UTF-16, but get promoted automatically to > UCS4 when you index or slice them. The difference will not be visible > to Python code. A compile-time switch will not be necessary. What do > you think?
This breaks backwards compatibility with existing extension modules. Applications that do PyUnicode_AsUnicode get a Py_UNICODE*, and can use that to directly access the characters. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
