Fredrik Lundh wrote: > >... > > doesn't change a thing: the SOURCE CODE still has an > encoding. > > I'm strongly -1 on your proposal. > > it's not representing current best practices (xml, java), > and it's not future proof. we can do better. I think that with minor tweaks, the PEP can be a real step forward from where we are. I as disappointed with Guido's quick dismissal because I do think we have a problem in that people can send around Python programs with a bunch of encoded text without any declaration. Neither text editors nor even the Python interpreter itself know how to display that information on someone else's machine. Having a declaration would be a big step towards breaking the implicit dependence of those files on their "home" machines. For the declaration to have the effect I hope for, it would have to be file-scoped and apply to all binary data in the file. -- Take a recipe. Leave a recipe. Python Cookbook! http://www.ActiveState.com/pythoncookbook
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