[Python-Dev] (Not) delaying the 3.2 release
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Sep 16 17:42:07 CEST 2010
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:48AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
> >but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
> >that bytes don't work. This turns out to be a PITA for some networking
> >related code which really wants to be working with raw bytes (e.g.
> >URLs coming off the wire).
> Note that email has exactly the same problem. A general solution -- even if
> embodied in *well documented* best-practices and convention -- would really
> help make the stdlib work consistently, and I bet third party libraries too.
I too await a solution with abated breath :-) I've been working on
documenting best practices for APIs and Unicode and for this type of
function (take bytes or unicode and output the same type), knowing the
encoding is seems like a requirement in most cases:
I'd love to add another strategy there that shows how you can robustly
operate on bytes without knowing the encoding but from writing that, I think
that anytime you simplify your API you have to accept limitations on the
data you can take in. (For instance, some simplifications can handle
anything except ASCII-incompatible encodings).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Python-Dev