On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > We're in the process of forward-porting the recent (massive) json updates to > 3.1, and we are also thinking of dropping remnants of support of the bytes type > in the json library (in 3.1, again). This bytes support almost didn't work at > all, but there was a lot of C and Python code for it nevertheless. We're also > thinking of dropping the "encoding" argument in the various APIs, since it is > useless. > > Under the new situation, json would only ever allow str as input, and output str > as well. By posting here, I want to know whether anybody would oppose this > (knowing, once again, that bytes support is already broken in the current py3k > trunk). > > The bug entry is: http://bugs.python.org/issue4136 I'm kind of surprised that a serialization protocol like JSON wouldn't support reading/writing bytes (as the serialized format -- I don't care about having bytes as values, since JavaScript doesn't have something equivalent AFAIK, and hence JSON doesn't allow it IIRC). Marshal and Pickle, for example, *always* treat the serialized format as bytes. And since in most cases it will be sent over a socket, at some point the serialized representation *will* be bytes, I presume. What makes supporting this hard? -- --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