Blog "about python 3"

[Terry Reedy]

On 1/8/2014 4:59 AM, wxjmfauth at gmail.com wrote:
[responding to me]
> The FSR acts more as an coding scheme selector

That is what PEP 393 describes and what I and many others have said. The 
FSR saves memory by selecting from three choices the most compact coding 
scheme for each string.

I ask again, have you read PEP 393? If you are going to critique the 
FSR, you should read its basic document.

 > than as a code point optimizer.

I do not know what you mean by 'code point optimizer'.

> Claiming that it saves memory is some kind of illusion;

Do you really think that the mathematical fact "10026 < 20040 < 40044" 
(from your example below) is some kind of illusion? If so, please take 
your claim to a metaphysics list. If not, please stop trolling.

> a little bit as saying "Py2.7 uses "relatively" less memory than
> Py3.2 (UCS-2)".

This is inane as 2.7 and 3.2 both use the same two coding schemes. 
Saying '1 < 2' is different from saying '2 < 2'.

On 3.3+
>>>> sys.getsizeof('a' * 10000 + 'z')
> 10026
>>>> sys.getsizeof('a' * 10000 + '€')
> 20040
>>>> sys.getsizeof('a' * 10000 + '\U00010000')
> 40044

3.2- wide (UCS-4) builds use about 40050 bytes for all three unicode 
strings. One again, you have posted examples that show how FSR saves 
memory, thus negating your denial of the saving.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy