Fredrik Lundh wrote:
guido wrote:
I propose ustr(x) with the semantics given by Toby.
+1 on concept.
not sure about the name and the semantics.
Uhm, what's left then ;-) ?
maybe a better name would be "unistr" (to match "unistr"). or maybe that's backwards?
how about "String" (!).
(the perfect name is "string", but that appears to be reserved by someone else...)
as for the semantics, note that __str__ is allowed to return a unicode string in the current code base ("str" converts it to 8- bit using the default encoding). ustr/unistr/String should pass that one right through:
def ustr(s): if type(s) in (type(""), type(u"")): return s s = s.__str__() if type(s) in (type(""), type(u"")): return s raise "__str__ returned wrong type"
Class support (an __ustr__ method, with fallbacks on __str__ and __unicode__) would also be handy.
-0 on this one (__str__ can already return either type, and if the goal is to get rid of both unichr and unistr in the future, we shouldn't add more hooks if we can avoid it. it's easier to remove stuff if you don't add them in the first place ;-)
Agreed. I'm just adding coercion support for instances using that technique: instance defining __str__ can return Unicode objects which will then be used by the implementation whereever coercion to Unicode takes place. I'll add a similar hook to unicode(). -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/