At 04:04 PM 6/21/2010 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: >On Jun 21, 2010, at 01:24 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > > >OTOH, one potential problem with having the encoding on the bytes object > >rather than the ebytes object is that then you can't easily take > bytes from a > >socket and then say what encoding they are, without interfering with the > >sockets API (or whatever other place you get the bytes from). > >Unless the default was the "I don't know" marker and you were able to set it >after you've done whatever kind of application-level calculation you needed to >do. True, but making it a separate type with a required encoding gets rid of the magical "I don't know" - the "I don't know" encoding is just a plain old bytes object. (In principle, you could then drop *all* the stringlike methods from plain-old-bytes objects. If it's really text-in-bytes you want, you should use an ebytes with the encoding specified.)
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