portable unicode literals

[Alex Strickland]

On 2012/10/15 03:05 PM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:

> This actually came as a surprise to me, I assumed that using b'' I could
> portably create a byte string (which is true) and using u'' I could
> portably create a unicode string (which is not true). This feature would
> help porting code between both versions. While this is a state I can
> live with, I wonder what the rationale for this is.
>
> !puzzled thanks

u'' is legal in 3.3 again.

-- 
Regards
Alex