2.3: test test_normalization failed

Discussion in 'Python' started by Hans-Joachim Widmaier, Aug 14, 2003.

  1. When I compiled Python 2.3 at home, everything went well. make test
    reported no problems. At work, though, I got:

    test test_normalization failed -- 03F9;03F9;03F9;03A3;03A3;

    At first I thought it might be a problem with a somewhat inconsistently
    upgraded system, but a few looks showed me the real difference.
    At home I had updated Python quite frequently and downloaded
    NormalizationTest.txt some months ago. At work, I downloaded it last week.
    With revision 3.2.0 of said file the test passes, with revision 4.0.0 it
    fails.

    I have almost zip knowledge of the whole unicode business 'til now, so
    I'm not overly concerned. Was 3.2.0 buggy? Is 4.0.0 buggy? Are there
    different, incompatible specs? (Now _that_ I can't think of!)

    Whatever, maybe someone can give a little insight.

    Thanks for a great 2.3!

    Hans-Joachim
    Hans-Joachim Widmaier, Aug 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hans-Joachim Widmaier <> writes:

    > When I compiled Python 2.3 at home, everything went well. make test
    > reported no problems. At work, though, I got:
    >
    > test test_normalization failed -- 03F9;03F9;03F9;03A3;03A3;
    >
    > At first I thought it might be a problem with a somewhat inconsistently
    > upgraded system, but a few looks showed me the real difference.
    > At home I had updated Python quite frequently and downloaded
    > NormalizationTest.txt some months ago. At work, I downloaded it last week.
    > With revision 3.2.0 of said file the test passes, with revision 4.0.0 it
    > fails.


    This is known: Python from CVS explicitly requests the 3.2 file.

    > I have almost zip knowledge of the whole unicode business 'til now, so
    > I'm not overly concerned. Was 3.2.0 buggy? Is 4.0.0 buggy? Are there
    > different, incompatible specs? (Now _that_ I can't think of!)


    I would imagine it being something like unicode 4 adding more
    characters, but Python 2.3 -- being built on 3.2 normalization data --
    doesn't know how these new character compose or decompose. Just a
    guess.

    Cheers,
    mwh

    --
    Enlightenment is probably antithetical to impatience.
    -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
    Michael Hudson, Aug 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Michael Hudson <> wrote in message news:<>...

    [test failure with 4.0.0]

    > This is known: Python from CVS explicitly requests the 3.2 file.


    Maybe test_normalization.py should look at the file version itself and
    tell the unsuspicious that it really wants the 3.2 version.

    > I would imagine it being something like unicode 4 adding more
    > characters, but Python 2.3 -- being built on 3.2 normalization data --
    > doesn't know how these new character compose or decompose. Just a
    > guess.


    Sounds reasonable. So the 2.3 normalization is just incomplete
    regarding the newest standard.

    Dismissed.

    Thanks,
    Hans-Joachim
    Hans-Joachim Widmaier, Aug 15, 2003
    #3
  4. (Hans-Joachim Widmaier) writes:

    > Michael Hudson <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    > [test failure with 4.0.0]
    >
    > > This is known: Python from CVS explicitly requests the 3.2 file.

    >
    > Maybe test_normalization.py should look at the file version itself and
    > tell the unsuspicious that it really wants the 3.2 version.


    It's kind of hard to do that for the already released 2.3 :)

    > > I would imagine it being something like unicode 4 adding more
    > > characters, but Python 2.3 -- being built on 3.2 normalization data --
    > > doesn't know how these new character compose or decompose. Just a
    > > guess.

    >
    > Sounds reasonable. So the 2.3 normalization is just incomplete
    > regarding the newest standard.


    Yep. I would guess it likely that 2.4 will be up to date again, but
    it's not really my field.

    Cheers,
    mwh

    --
    Java is a WORA language! (Write Once, Run Away)
    -- James Vandenberg (on )
    & quoted by David Rush on comp.lang.scheme
    Michael Hudson, Aug 15, 2003
    #4
  5. Michael Hudson <> writes:

    > > Sounds reasonable. So the 2.3 normalization is just incomplete
    > > regarding the newest standard.

    >
    > Yep. I would guess it likely that 2.4 will be up to date again, but
    > it's not really my field.


    It will be tricky to update. Python now also supports IDNA
    (encodings/idna.py), which implements RFC 3490/91/92, which requires
    the Unicode 3.2 database; updating to 4.0 would be a violation of that
    RFC. So if we want to update the database, we need to find a way still
    to keep the old one.

    Regards,
    Martin
    Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=, Aug 31, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sck10
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    883
    sck10
    Sep 1, 2006
  2. kiran
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,356
  3. Skybuck Flying

    Call oddities: &Test() vs &Test vs Test

    Skybuck Flying, Oct 4, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    678
    Skybuck Flying
    Oct 4, 2009
  4. Tony Johansson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    16,089
    Patrice
    Jan 2, 2010
  5. Albert-Jan Roskam
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    69
    Chris Angelico
    Nov 25, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page