Chris Angelico [mailto:ros...@gmail.com] wrote: > The first one is already the case. PEP 414 reintroduced the u"..." literal > form, specifically > as a porting tool. Given that it has absolutely zero value in pure Py3 code > [...]
Challenge accepted :) Here comes my https://xkcd.com/1172/ moment. I'm using the u prefix to tag user interface strings for translation. u"..." goes through i18n, "..." doesn't. I have tools that extract and replace texts, identify new strings for translation etc. based on this. I was very happy when 3.3 reintroduced the prefix, because it allowed me to upgrade without losing my very efficient workflow. Not to mention having to make 10.000 code changes to replace the prefix with something or other. If the prefix goes, I'm not going to complain, I know my setup is fairly unique and I can't really demand that you keep vestigial syntax around just for that. But I'd still be sorry to see it go. regards, Anders _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/WCZDU2M2YK6A2UDP7OSN6P3VUOPMKCYI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
