On 3-jan-04, at 21:06, Martin v. Loewis wrote: > Aahz wrote: >>> Library writers should avoid using it. If the application uses it, >>> libraries should not notice, since they won't get exceptions that >>> they >>> should not have gotten in the first place. >> What if a library wants to ensure that it *does* get appropriate >> exceptions so that it can handle them? > > It would explicitly need to encode/decode strings as us-ascii, > instead of relying on the default encoding (which it shouldn't do > in the first place). Do I understand correctly then that this relaxed error handling could be seen as an "argument" to the encoding, i.e. it turns "us-ascii" into "us-ascii-relaxed"? Because if that is so, then isn't the best way to implement this to not bother with sys.relaxedunicodeerrors, but in stead use a special encoding name (or a parameter to an encoding name, such as "us-ascii;relaxed")? -- Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen at cwi.nl>, 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