Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
You are mixing things here:
The source encoding is meant for the parser and defines the way Unicode literals are converted into Unicode objects.
The encoding used on the stdout stream doesn't have anything to do with the source code encoding and has to be handled differently.
Sorry. I probably wasn't clear enough in my message. I understand the issue, and I'm not discussing source encoding at all. The only problem I'd like to solve is that of output streams not being able to have unicode strings written.
The idiom presented by Bob is the right way to go: wrap sys.stdout with a StreamEncoder.
I don't see that as a good solution, since every Python software that is internationalizaed will have do figure out this wrapping, introducing extra overhead unnecessarily.
This wrapping is probably necessary for stateful encodings. If you had a sys.stdout.encoding=="utf-16", print would probably add the BOM every time a unicode object is printed. This doesn't happen if you wrap sys.stdout in a StreamWriter.
[...] That's what I think as well. I just would expect that Python was kind enough to allow me to tell which output encoding I want, instead of wrapping the sys.stdout object with a non-native-file.
IOW, being widely necessary, handling internationalization without wrapping sys.stdout everytime seems like a good step for a language like Python.
You can't have stateful encodings without something that keeps state. The only thing that does keep state in Python is a StreamReader/StreamWriter.
Bye, Walter Dörwald