Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > ... > > > Is this really an good idea? Was it an intended side effect? > > > > The intention is to make str() and unicode() behave in the same > > way. It is not a side-effect. unicode() now behaves in the same > > way as str() always did. > > Not true. "".join(["a", 3]) raises a TypeError, and this is how it > should be. So I expect that u"".join(["a", 3]) also raises TypeError, > not return u"a3" as it does now. This is fixed now. It was a bug in the .join() method (it would have excepted instances with __str__ too, for example). > I urge you to reconsider how this change is implemented. The implied > unicode() call for list items in the join() method is probably just > scratching the surface -- there are likely other places where now > suddenly everything is auto-converted to a unicode string. Hmm, perhaps you are right and we should use a slightly extended version of PyObject_Unicode() for unicode() and leave PyUnicode_FromObject() as it was (it only converted strings, buffers and instances implementing __str__ to Unicode). -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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