unicode encoding usablilty problem

[Nick Coghlan]

Thomas Heller wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= <martin at v.loewis.de> writes:
> 
> 
>>We have come up with a transition strategy, allowing existing
>>libraries to widen their support from byte strings to character
>>strings. This isn't a simple task, so many libraries still expect
>>and return byte strings, when they should process character strings.
>>Instead of breaking the libraries right away, we have defined
>>a transitional mechanism, which allows to add Unicode support
>>to libraries as the need arises. This transition is still in
>>progress.
>>
>>Eventually, the primary string type should be the Unicode
>>string. If you are curious how far we are still off that goal,
>>just try running your program with the -U option.
> 
> 
> Is it possible to specify a byte string literal when running with the -U option?

Not that I know of. If the 'bytes' type happens, then I'd be a fan of b"" to get 
a byte string instead of a character string.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at email.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
             http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net