> Martin von Loewis wrote: > > > > > is there any reason why "print" cannot pass unicode > > > strings on to the underlying write method? > > > > Mostly because there is no guarantee that every .write method will > > support Unicode objects. I see two options: either a stream might > > declare itself as supporting unicode on output (by, say, providing a > > unicode attribute), or all streams are required by BDFL pronouncement > > to accept Unicode objects. > > I think the latter option would go a long way: many file-like > objects are written in C and will use the C parser markers. These > can handle Unicode without problem (issuing an exception in case > the conversion to ASCII fails). Agreed, but BDFL pronouncement doesn't make it so: individual modules still have to be modified if they don't do the right thing (especially 3rd party modules -- we have no control there). And then, what's the point of handling Unicode if we only accept Unicode-encoded ASCII strings? > The only notable exception is > the cStringIO module -- but this could probably be changed to > be buffer interface compliant too. Sure, just submit a patch. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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