On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:43:16 +1000 Nick Coghlan email@example.com wrote:
On 5 June 2014 21:25, Paul Sokolovsky firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Well, I understand the plan - hoping that people will "get over this". And I'm personally happy to stay away from this "trolling", but any discussion related to Unicode goes in circles and returns to feeling that Unicode at the central role as put there by Python3 is misplaced.
Many of the challenges network programmers face in Python 3 are around binary data being more inconvenient to work with than it needs to be, not the fact we decentralised boundary code by offering a strict binary/text separation as the default mode of operation.
Just to clarify - (many) other gentlemen and I (in that order, I'm not taking a lead), don't call to go back to Python2 behavior with implicit conversion between byte-oriented strings and Unicode, etc. They just point out that perhaps Python3 went too far with Unicode cause by making it the default string type. Strict separation is surely mostly good thing (I can sigh that it leads to Java-like dichotomical bloat for all I/O classes, but well, I was able to put up with that in MicroPython already).
Aside from some of the POSIX locale handling issues on Linux, many of the concerns are with the usability of bytes and bytearray, not with str - that's why binary interpolation is coming back in 3.5, and there will likely be other usability tweaks for those types as well.
All these changes are what let me dream on and speculate on possibility that Python4 could offer an encoding-neutral string type (which means based on bytes), while move unicode back to an explicit type to be used explicitly only when needed (bloated frameworks like Django can force users to it anyway, but that will be forcing on framework level, not on language level, against which people rebel.) People can dream, right?
Thanks, Paul mailto:email@example.com