[Python-Dev] PEP 414

[Chris McDonough]

On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 16:06 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 09:20 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 
> >It reduces the problem (compared to omitting the import and using a
> >u() function), but it's still ugly and still involves the "action at a
> >distance" of the unicode literals import.
> 
> Frankly, that doesn't bother me at all.  I've been using the future import in
> all my code pretty successfully for a long while now.  It's much more
> important for a project to use or not use the future import consistently, and
> then there really should be no confusion when looking at the code for that
> project.

That's completely reasonable in a highly controlled project with
relatively few highly-bought-in contributors.  In projects with lots of
hit-and-run contributors, though, it's more desirable to have things
meet a rule of least surprise.

Much of the software I work on is Python 3 compatible, but it's still
used primarily on Python 2.  Because most people still care primarily
about Python 2, and most don't have a lot of Python 3 experience, it's
extremely common to see folks submitting patches with u'' literals in
them.

> I'm not necessarily saying I'm opposed to the purpose of the PEP.  I do think
> it's unnecessary for most Python problem domains, but can appreciate that WSGI
> apps are feeling a special pain here that should be addressed somehow.  It
> would be nice however if the solution were in the form of a separate module
> that could be used in earlier Python versions.

If we use the unicode_literals future import, or some other exernal
module strategy, it doesn't help much with the hitnrun contributor
thing, I fear.

- C