My WIP on Unicode
nicolas.s-dev at laposte.net
Tue Feb 10 22:46:41 GMT 2015
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:31:29PM -0500, Isaac Bennetch wrote:
> > On 2/10/15 7:17 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Supporting Unicode is much harder than what it seems. The main reasons
> > are:
> > - Python 2.X sucks with Unicode;
> Thanks for your research and work. Does Python 3 handle this better;
> would it be easier to implement if you only targeted Python 3? If that's
> true, I would consider that a reasonable compromise in order to add
> decent Unicode support, if it makes development that much easier.
This is something I've seriously considered but we have to think large
to not hurt too much.
I tend to believe that Python2 remains the only supported python version
in a lot of distributions (think large, with BSD*, etc). The other
problem is that Python2 is only part of the wall. I blam the current
code base and the libraries, too.
But yes, porting to Python3 _and_ cleaning the code base prior to
actually support Unicode is a real option.
Thanks for your support. :-)
> > - our codebase has too much enterlaced variables over objects and
> > modules;
> > - each library (if not each module of libraries) handles Unicode
> > differently.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project