On maandag, augustus 5, 2002, at 05:47 , M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Jack Jansen wrote: >> Having to register the error handler first and then finding it >> by name smells like a very big hack to me. I understand the >> reasoning (that you don't want to modify the API of a >> gazillion C routines to add an error object argument) but it >> still seems like a hack.... > > Well, in that case, you would have to call the whole codec registry > a hack ;-) No, not really. For codecs I think that there needn't be much of a connection between the codec-supplier and the codec-user. Conceivably the encoding-identifying string being passed to encode() could even have been read from a data file or something. For error handling this is silly: the code calling encode() or decode() will know how it wants errors handled. And if you argue that it isn't really error handling but an extension to the encoding name then maybe it should be treated as such (by appending it to the codec name in the string, as in "ascii;xmlentitydefs" or so?). -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
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