On 01/11/2014 07:34 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 12 January 2014 01:15, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >> We don't have to be pedantic about the bytes/text separation. >> It doesn't help in real life. > > Yes, it bloody well does. The number of people who have told me that > using Python 3 is what allowed them to finally understand how Unicode > works . . . We are not proposing a change to the unicode string type in any way. > We are NOT going back to the confusing incoherent mess that is the > Python 2 model of bolting Unicode onto the side of POSIX . . . We are not asking for that. >> bytes already have most of the 8-bit string methods from Python 2, >> so it doesn't hurt adding some more of the missing features >> from Python 2 on top to make life easier for people dealing >> with multiple/unknown encoding data. > > Because people that aren't happy with the current bytes type > persistently refuse to experiment with writing their own extension > type to figure out what the API should look like. Jamming speculative > API design into the core text model without experimenting in a third > party extension first is a straight up stupid idea. True, if this were a new API; but it isn't, it's the Py2 str API that was stripped out. The one big difference being that if the results of %s (or %d or any other %) is not in the 0-127 range it errors out. -- ~Ethan~
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