On 01/11/2014 07:34 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 12 January 2014 01:15, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
We don't have to be pedantic about the bytes/text separation. It doesn't help in real life.
Yes, it bloody well does. The number of people who have told me that using Python 3 is what allowed them to finally understand how Unicode works . . .
We are not proposing a change to the unicode string type in any way.
We are NOT going back to the confusing incoherent mess that is the Python 2 model of bolting Unicode onto the side of POSIX . . .
We are not asking for that.
bytes already have most of the 8-bit string methods from Python 2, so it doesn't hurt adding some more of the missing features from Python 2 on top to make life easier for people dealing with multiple/unknown encoding data.
Because people that aren't happy with the current bytes type persistently refuse to experiment with writing their own extension type to figure out what the API should look like. Jamming speculative API design into the core text model without experimenting in a third party extension first is a straight up stupid idea.
True, if this were a new API; but it isn't, it's the Py2 str API that was stripped out. The one big difference being that if the results of %s (or %d or any other %) is not in the 0-127 range it errors out. -- ~Ethan~