On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > Le Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:34:45 +0200, > Lennart Regebro <regebro at gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> I don't agree that there is a significant difference between those >> wordings in this context. The end result is the same: Things intended >> to be handled/seen as textual should be unicode strings, things >> intended for data exchange should be byte strings. > > I don't think this distinction is meaningful at all. OK, then I think we have found the core of the problem, and the end of the discussion (from my side, that is). > In the end, > everything is a byte string on a classical computer (including unicode > strings displayed on your monitor, obviously). Yes of course. Especially since my monitor is an output device. ;-) > If you think the technicalities of an operation should never be hidden > or abstracted away, then you're better off with C than Python ;-) The whole point is that Python *does* abstract it away. It abstract the internals of Unicode strings in such a way that they are no longer, conceptually, 8-bit data. This *is* a distinction Python does, and it is a useful distinction. I do not see any reason to remove it. http://regebro.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/unconfusing-unicode-what-is-unicode/ //Lennart
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