Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > mal wrote: > > > The idea is not new: strings and Unicode should have more > > or less the same methods to enhance their compatibility. > > > > The attached patch adds encoding capabilities to normal > > strings and extends the builtin str() to accept an optional > > encoding (and error) argument. It also tries to reuse the > > already available Unicode codecs for the purposes of strings > > (conversions are done via the default encoding in both > > directions). > > ... > > > What do you think about this ? Should I add it to CVS > > as experiment ? > > +1 on the "encode" part > > -0 on the "str" part (intuitively, it's -1, but I don't have > any good arguments against it right now... maybe later) The str() extension complements unicode() which also works as constructor for object given an encoding. Ideally, unicode() should also look for __unicode__() on instances just like str() looks for __str__(). Note that we could also have a .decode() method instead of modifying str(), but this would break symmetry to Unicode, since you can't decode Unicode into anything... -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: 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