On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 17:12, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
>> Ok, banning ru"..." and ur"..." altogether is fine too (assuming it's
>> fine with the originators of the PEP).
>
> It's gone for good. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/8e47e9af826e
>
> (My
Am 18.06.2012 17:12, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> Ok, banning ru"..." and ur"..." altogether is fine too (assuming it's
> fine with the originators of the PEP).
It's gone for good. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/8e47e9af826e
(My first push for a very long time. Man, that feels good!)
___
Cool.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 11:12 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Ok, banning ru"..." and ur"..." altogether is fine too (assuming it's
>> fine with the originators of the PEP).
>>
>
> The original PEP never proposed ur or ru , only u/U.
>
> It turn
On 6/18/2012 11:12 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Ok, banning ru"..." and ur"..." altogether is fine too (assuming it's
fine with the originators of the PEP).
The original PEP never proposed ur or ru , only u/U.
It turns out that ur is problematical even in 2.x, as its meaning is
changed by the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/17/2012 9:07 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nick Coghlan >
>
> So, perhaps the answer is to leave this as is, and try to make 2to3
>>smart enough to detect such escapes and replace them with the
Ok, banning ru"..." and ur"..." altogether is fine too (assuming it's fine
with the originators of the PEP).
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:59 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"
> wrote:
> > On 17.06.2012 22:41, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> Would it make se
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:59 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> On 17.06.2012 22:41, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Would it make sense to detect and reject these in 3.3 if the 2.7 syntax
>> is used?
>
> Maybe we are talking about different things: The (new) proposal is that
> the ur prefix in 3.3 is a sy
On 6/18/2012 2:06 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Hm. I still encounter enough environments that don't know how to display
such characters that I would prefer to have a rock solid \u escape
mechanism.
If you want to use them under the revised PEP 414, you will have to
avoid making them raw, and j
> But the whole point of the reintroduction of u"..." is to support code
> that isn't run through 2to3. Frankly, I don't care how it's done, but
> I'd say it's important not to silently have different behavior for the
> same notation in the two versions. If that means we have to add an extra
> step
On 6/17/2012 9:07 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nick Coghlan
So, perhaps the answer is to leave this as is, and try to make 2to3
smart enough to detect such escapes and replace them with their
properly encoded (according to the source code encoding) U
On 17.06.2012 22:41, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Would it make sense to detect and reject these in 3.3 if the 2.7 syntax
> is used?
Maybe we are talking about different things: The (new) proposal is that
the ur prefix in 3.3 is a syntax error (again, as it was before PEP
414). So, yes: the raw unico
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> (this reminds me of Germany's path wrt. nuclear power
Yeah, except presumably Python won't be buying cheap "raw Unicode"
support from Perl. ;-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailma
On 18/06/2012 00:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Would it make sense to detect and reject these in 3.3 if the 2.7 syntax is
used?
Possibly - I'm trying not to actually *change* any of the internals of
the string literal processing, though. (I
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> > Would it make sense to detect and reject these in 3.3 if the 2.7 syntax
> is
> > used?
>
> Possibly - I'm trying not to actually *change* any of the internals of
> the string lit
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Would it make sense to detect and reject these in 3.3 if the 2.7 syntax is
> used?
Possibly - I'm trying not to actually *change* any of the internals of
the string literal processing, though. (If I recall the way we
implemented the chang
Would it make sense to detect and reject these in 3.3 if the 2.7 syntax is
used?
--Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone)
On Jun 17, 2012 1:13 PM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > The premise of the discussion of adding 'u', and of Guido's acce
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> The premise of the discussion of adding 'u', and of Guido's acceptance, was
> that "it's about as harmless as they come". I do not remember any discussion
> of 'ur' and what it really means in 2.x, and that supporting it meant adding
> back 2.x
On 6/17/2012 10:59 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
So, while PEP 414 will allow u"" to run unmodified, ur"" will still
need to be changed to something else, because that partially escaped
behaviour isn't available in 3.x and we don't want to reintroduce it.
Given that the PEP currently explicitly
> So, while PEP 414 will allow u"" to run unmodified, ur"" will still
> need to be changed to something else, because that partially escaped
> behaviour isn't available in 3.x and we don't want to reintroduce it.
Given that the PEP currently explicitly supports ur, I think the
reversal of the reve
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the topic came up on the python-users list today. The raw string syntax
> has a minor inconsistency. The ru"" notation is a syntax error although
> we support rb"". Neither rb"" nor ru"" are supported on Python 2.7.
>
> Python 3
Hello,
the topic came up on the python-users list today. The raw string syntax
has a minor inconsistency. The ru"" notation is a syntax error although
we support rb"". Neither rb"" nor ru"" are supported on Python 2.7.
Python 3.3:
works: r"", ur"", br"", rb""
syntax error: ru""
Python 2.7:
21 matches
Mail list logo
