At 02:58 AM 6/22/2010 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >Nick alluded to the The One Obvious Way as a change in architecture. > >Specifically: Decode all bytes to typed objects (str, images, audio, >structured objects) at input. Do no manipulations on bytes ever >except decode and encode (both to text, and to special-purpose objects >such as images) in a program that does I/O. This ignores the existence of use cases where what you have is text that can't be properly encoded in unicode. I know, it's a hard thing to wrap one's head around, since on the surface it sounds like unicode is the programmer's savior. Unfortunately, real-world text data exists which cannot be safely roundtripped to unicode, and must be handled in "bytes with encoding" form for certain operations. I personally do not have to deal with this *particular* use case any more -- I haven't been at NTT/Verio for six years now. But I do know it exists for e.g. Asian language email handling, which is where I first encountered it. At the time (this *may* have changed), many popular email clients did not actually support unicode, so you couldn't necessarily just send off an email in UTF-8. It drove us nuts on the project where this was involved (an i18n of an existing Python app), and I think we had to compromise a bit in some fashion (because we couldn't really avoid unicode roundtripping due to database issues), but the use case does actually exist. My current needs are simpler, thank goodness. ;-) However, they *do* involve situations where I'm dealing with *other* encoding-restricted legacy systems, such as software for interfacing with the US Postal Service that only works with a restricted subset of latin1, while receiving mangled ASCII from an ecommerce provider, and storing things in what's effectively a latin-1 database. Being able to easily assert what kind of bytes I've got would actually let me catch errors sooner, *if* those assertions were being checked when different kinds of strings or bytes were being combined. i.e., at coercion time). >Yes, this is tedious if you live in an ASCII world, compared to using >bytes as characters. However, it works for the rest of us, which the >old style doesn't. I'm not trying to go back to the old style -- ideally, I want something that would actually improve on the "it's not really unicode" use cases above if it were available in 2.x. I don't want to be "encoding agnostic" or "encoding implicit", -- I want to make it possible to be even *more* explicit and restrictive than it is currently possible to be in either 2.x OR 3.x. It's just that 3.x affords greater opportunity for doing this, and is an ideal place to make the switch -- i.e., at a point where you now have to get explicit about your encodings, anyway! >As for "Think Carefully About It Every Time", that is required only in >Porting Programs That Mix Operation On Bytes With Operation On Str. >If you write programs from scratch, however, the decode-process-encode >paradigm quickly becomes second nature. Which works if and only if your outputs are truly unicode-able. If you work with legacy systems (e.g. those Asian email clients and US postal software), you are really working with a *character set*, not unicode, and so putting your data in unicode form is actually *wrong* -- an expedient lie. Heresy, I know, but there you go. ;-)
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