Glenn Linderman wrote: > On approximately 4/10/2009 9:56 AM, came the following characters from > the keyboard of Barry Warsaw: >> On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:19 AM, glyph at divmod.com wrote: >>> On 02:38 am, barry at python.org wrote: >>>> So, what I'm really asking is this. Let's say you agree that there >>>> are use cases for accessing a header value as either the raw >>>> encoded bytes or the decoded unicode. What should this return: >>>> >>>> >>> message['Subject'] >>>> >>>> The raw bytes or the decoded unicode? >>> >>> My personal preference would be to just get deprecate this API, and >>> get rid of it, replacing it with a slightly more explicit one. >>> >>> message.headers['Subject'] >>> message.bytes_headers['Subject'] >> >> This is pretty darn clever Glyph. Stop that! :) >> >> I'm not 100% sure I like the name .bytes_headers or that .headers >> should be the decoded header (rather than have .headers return the >> bytes thingie and say .decoded_headers return the decoded thingies), >> but I do like the general approach. > > If one name has to be longer than the other, it should be the bytes > version. Real user code is more likely to want to use the text > version, and hopefully there will be more of that type of code than > implementations using bytes. > > Of course, one could use message.header and message.bythdr and they'd > be the same length. > > Shouldn't headers always be text? Michael -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
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