Am 12.03.2014 11:54, schrieb Pierre Joye:
Also I do not get your argument earlier in this discussion saying that
we should not implement objects or pseudo-objects for unicode support.
where is the problem? It can work with existing functions as well,
does not break BC, does not introduce weird syntax that prevents code
from running in 5.x and 6.x (u"foo" will f.e.). The more I look at it,
the more I think it is the way.
Am 06.03.2014 08:56, schrieb Crypto Compress:
Would "type juggling" allow for autoboxing into a second string type where needed (unicode-aware functions)?
No, we should not create an string-object to handle all intricacies of unicode.
I'm against heavyweight objects not "object" per se.