5 ms·
I think the author meant that UTF-32 is the worst encoding, though that seems to conflate choice of "length" definition with how the value is encoded internally
by ekimekim 7y ago
I think the author meant that UTF-32 is the worst encoding, though that seems to conflate choice of "length" definition with how the value is encoded internally.
- dullgiulio 7y agoNo, just that you only want to expand the encoded string into Unicode wide bytes for certain operations and you want to pay that price only on demand. The article also explains how internally this is an optimization the Python interpreter actually does.