On 04/13/2016 10:22 AM, Alexander Walters wrote: > On 4/13/2016 13:10, Brett Cannon wrote: >> https://gist.github.com/brettcannon/b3719f54715787d54a206bc011869aa1 >> has the four potential approaches implemented (although it doesn't >> follow the "separate functions" approach some are proposing and >> instead goes with the allow_bytes approach I originally proposed). > > Number 4 is my personal favorite - it has a simple control flow path and > is the least needlessly restrictive. Number 3: it allows bytes, but only when told it's okay to do so. Having code get a bytes object when one is not expected is not a headache we need to inflict on anyone. -- ~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