Message122711
| Author |
belopolsky |
| Recipients |
belopolsky, lemburg, loewis, pbnan |
| Date |
2010年11月28日.19:20:24 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.3059053e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<AANLkTinUTjbd-FRhjeSiA4XeNaJbQS5Y+y9HeHJRu_9E@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<4CF2A879.1040507@egenix.com> |
| Content |
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Marc-Andre Lemburg
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> The tables were never manually maintained, but we also did not update
> Python for each new Unicode version:
>
> Python 1.6: Unicode 3.0
> Python 2.0: Unicode 3.0
> Python 2.1: Unicode 3.0
> Python 2.2: Unicode 3.0
> Python 2.3: Unicode 3.2
> Python 2.4: Unicode 3.2
> Python 2.5: Unicode 4.1
> Python 2.6: Unicode 5.1
> Python 2.7: Unicode 5.2
>
Thank you for the summary. Note that Python reference pages have been
updated even less frequently. [1] Since Python language and standard
library definitions are now (in 3.x) closely tied to the Unicode
definition, I wonder whether unicodedata.unidata_version should be
more prominently featured in the docs. (Possibly even included in the
Python CLI banner, but that is probably an overkill.)
[1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/docs/2010-November/002074.html |
|