=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think that you will find that you are using a non-standard
> > environment and set of Python sources.
>
> Please trust me that I didn't. See below.
I always trust people as much as I trust myself, but I do tend to
check
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is no problem for isalnum: it will just go away if
> byte-oriented characters go away. Fortunately, we have a
> replacement for the Unicode case.
As we do for isprint.
> The relevance is that your specification of "pr
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> Ah, the makefile. I don't think you use it create the Unicode database.
>>
>> It's only good for generating the codecs (Lib/encodings)
>
> Yes, but it DOES attempt to download the mappings, and is the ONLY
> script which attempts to do so.
Of course it does. The Tools/unic
Please spread the word. The py3k-struni branch is dead! Don't use it any more.
--Guido
-- Forwarded message --
From: Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Aug 9, 2007 7:43 AM
Subject: Move to a "py3k" branch *DONE*
To: Python 3000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL
>> Ah, the makefile. I don't think you use it create the Unicode database.
>>
>> It's only good for generating the codecs (Lib/encodings)
>
> Yes, but it DOES attempt to download the mappings, and is the ONLY
> script which attempts to do so.
Sure. But (again): you don't need to have the mappings
Nick Maclaren schrieb:
>> The relevance is that your specification of "printing character"
>> as "isprint returns true" is nearly useless, as it only applies
>> to byte-oriented characters.
>
> Eh? That's ALL I used it to specify! I used a Unicode-based
> specification for Unicode.
Your specifi
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I know the term "printable character", which is what I read
> in definitions of the isprint() routine. "printing character"
> I never heard before.
Hmmm... I guess this means your brain is using a
part-of-speech-sensitive word->technical_meaning
mapping.
Perhaps this will
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Firstly, things like backreferences are an absolute no-no. They
> are not regular, and REs with them in cannot be converted to DFAs.
> That could be 'solved' by a parser that kicked out such constructions,
> but it would get screams from many user
