Re: Format strings

Josef Spillner wrote:
> But (my last remaining question, as it seems), the default encoding of =

> unicode() is "ascii" instead of "utf-8" even for this particular source f=
ile =

> which specifies utf-8 encoding.
> Would changing this to match the source file encoding break applications =
as =

> well?

No. *That* would not be implementable (or, if somehow implemented, would
break applications). In general, if you convert a Unicode string into
a byte string, you cannot even be sure it originally came from source =

code. Say you do

a =3D u"Martin "
b =3D u"v. "
c =3D u"L=F6wis"
mvl =3D a+b+c

Now, the object mvl does not have any source code: so which encoding =

should be used to encode it? If you have an answer: how does that change
if I have

mvl =3D mod1.a+mod2.b+mod3.c

> Note that the documentation is not really helpful about this aspect. I'd =
like =

> to advocate for an i18n paragraph in the tutorial even, where such =

> behavioural aspects are put into relation with each other, and explained =
in =

> the concept of modern (and legacy) runtime environment concepts.

Contributions to the documentation is welcome.

> Compare:
> [All of its arguments should be 8-bit strings]
> vs.
> [if object is a Unicode string or subclass it will return that Unicode st=
ring]
> (actually it should say "Unicode object" below, right?)

I personally use "Unicode string" (type unicode) vs. "byte string" (type
str). Both are strings.

> Is anyone coordinating the work, i.e. is there a "unicode compatibility s=
tatus =

> map" or anything similar?

No. It is so far from actually working that nobody bothers to fix it. =

However, if you have specific contributions which improve the state
(i.e. have no behaviour change if -U is not specified, but fix a bug
  when it is), those are appreciated.

Regards,
Martin