RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 16 20:27:50 CEST 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047898.html

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> 
>> If we switch the binding of 'yyy' to mean unicode('yyy')
>> some day, why can't we just continue to use the existing implementation
>> for 8-bit strings for b'xxx' (the current implementation is already
>> doing the right thing, meaning that it is 8-bit safe regardeless
>> of the source code encoding) ?
> 
> 
> Not exactly - the current implementation is not safe with respect to
> re-encoding source in a different encoding.

It is if you stick to writing your binary data using an ASCII
compatible encoding -- I wouldn't expect any other encoding for
binary data anyway. The most common are ASCII + escape sequences,
base64 or hex, all of which are ASCII compatible.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Aug 16 2004)
 >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
 >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
 >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047898.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: adding a bytes sequence type to Python