On 6/21/2010 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > I don't know that the "all is well" camp actually exists. The camp > that I do see existing is the one that says "without a bug report, > inconsistencies in the standard library's unicode handling won't get > fixed". > > The issues picked up by the regression test suite have already been > dealt with, but that suite is unfortunately far from comprehensive. > Just like a lot of Python code that is out there, the standard library > isn't immune to the poor coding practices that were permitted by the > blurry lines between text and octet streams in 2.x. > > It may be that there are places where we need to rewrite standard > library algorithms to be bytes/str neutral (e.g. by using length one > slices instead of indexing). It may be that there are more APIs that > need to grow "encoding" keyword arguments that they then pass on to > the functions they call or use to convert str arguments to bytes (or > vice-versa). But without people trying to port affected libraries and > reporting bugs when they find issues, the situation isn't going to > improve. > > Now, if these bugs are already being reported against 3.1 and just > aren't getting fixed, that's a completely different story... Some of the above have been, over a year ago. See, for instance, http://bugs.python.org/issue5468 I am getting the impression that the people who use the web modules tend, like me, to not have the tools to write and test patches . So they can squeak but not grease. Terry Jan Reedy
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