At 1:42 AM -0700 02-05-2000, Ka-Ping Yee wrote: >If it turns out automatic conversions *are* absolutely necessary, >then i vote in favour of the simple, direct method promoted by Paul >and Fredrik: just copy the numerical values of the bytes. The fact >that this happens to correspond to Latin-1 is not really the point; >the main reason is that it satisfies the Principle of Least Surprise. Exactly. I'm not sure if automatic conversions are absolutely necessary, but seeing 8-bit strings as Latin-1 encoded Unicode strings seems most natural to me. Heck, even 8-bit strings should have an s.encode() method, that would behave *just* like u.encode(), and unicode(blah) could even *return* an 8-bit string if it turns out the string has no character codes > 255! Conceptually, this gets *very* close to the ideal of "there is only one string type", and at the same times leaves room for 8-bit strings doubling as byte arrays for backward compatibility reasons. (Unicode strings and 8-bit strings could even be the same type, which only uses wide chars when neccesary!) Just
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4