"monty" < "python"

[jmfauth]

On 23 mar, 17:17, Mark Lawrence <breamore... at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/03/2013 09:24, jmfauth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 mar, 22:02, Tim Delaney <tim.dela... at aptare.com> wrote:
> >> On 21 March 2013 06:40, jmfauth <wxjmfa... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> ----
> >>> [snip usual rant from jmf]
>
> >> It has been acknowledged as a real regression, but he keeps hijacking every
> >> thread where strings are mentioned to harp on about it. He has shown no
> >> inclination to attempt to *fix* the regression and is rapidly coming to be
> >> regarded as a troll by most participants in this list.
>
> > ---------
>
> > I can not help to fix it, because it is "unfixable". It
> > is "unfixable", because this flexible string representation
> > is wrong by design.
>
> > jmf
>
> Of course it's fixable.  All you need do is write a PEP clearing stating
> what is wrong with the implementation detailed in PEP393 and your own
> proposed design.  I'm looking forward to reading this PEP.
>
> Note that going backwards to buggier unicode implementations that
> existed in Python prior to version 3.3 is simply not an option.
>
> --
> Cheers.
>
> Mark Lawrence

------

The problem here is that this PEP 393 should not have been
created.
The first time I read it, I quickly understood, it can
not work!

This is illustrated by all the examples I give on this list.
In all the cases, I can explain why.

I never saw somebody beeing able to argue these examples are
wrong and/or explaining why they are wrong, except arguing
the flexible string representation exists!

jmf