With Python 2.4:
>>> u = u'\N{WHITE SMILING FACE}'
>>> class A:
... def __str__(self):
... return u
...
>>> class B:
... def __unicode__(self):
... return u
...
>>> u'%s' % A()
u'\u263a'
>>> u'%s' % B()
u'\u263a'
With Python 2.3:
>>> u'%s' % A()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\u263a' in
position 0: ordinal not in range(128)
>>> u'%s' % B()
u'<__main__.B instance at 0x401f910c>'
The only thing I found in the NEWS file that seemed relevant is
this note:
u'%s' % obj will now try obj.__unicode__() first and fallback to
obj.__str__() if no __unicode__ method can be found.
I don't think that describes the behavior difference. Allowing
__str__ return unicode strings seems like a pretty noteworthy
change (assuming that's what actually happened).
Also, I'm a little unclear on the purpose of the __unicode__ method.
If you can return unicode from __str__ then why would I want to
provide a __unicode__ method? Perhaps it is meant for objects that
can either return a unicode or a string representation depending on
what the caller prefers. I have a hard time imagining a use for
that.
Neil
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