On 01/12/2014 08:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 13 Jan 2014 01:22, "Kristján Valur Jónsson" wrote: >> >> Imho, this is not equivalent to re-introducing automatic type conversion between binary/unicode, it is adding a specific convenience function for explicitly asking for ASCII encoding. > > It is not explicit, it is implicit - whether or not the resulting string assumes ASCII compatibility or not depends on > whether you pass a binary value (no assumption) or a string value (assumes ASCII compatibility). Nick, I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the result of b'%s' % var may be either a bytes object or a str object? Because that would be wrong -- it would always be a bytes object. -- ~Ethan~
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