On 14 January 2014 15:15, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: > The purity position is probably going to lose in the end, since Guido > is clearly in the PBP camp at this point, and that's a strong > indicator (especially since Nick has given up on convincing > python-dev). But that does not mean it's entirely invalid. I didn't give up regarding PEP 460 - Guido pointed out an error in my assumptions that made my position invalid, and his correct. "Give up" makes it sound like I got tired of arguing without being convinced rather than admitting I was just plain wrong. While I'll still work on the asciistr proposal, that's unrelated to PEP 460 - it's about making hybrid APIs less painful to write in Python 3 when you're willing to place the burden of ensuring ASCII compatibility of binary data on the calling code. That kind of thing is likely to be a reasonable approach in specific domains (when writing a web development framework, for example), even though I think it's an *in*appropriate design for the standard library. PEP 460 should actually make asciistr easier in the long run, as I now expect we'll run into some "interesting" issues getting formatting to produce anything other than text (contrary to what I said elsewhere in these threads - I hadn't thought through the full implications at the time). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
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