On 04/18/2016 12:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Koos Zevenhoven writes: >> After all, we want something that's *almost* exclusively str. > > But we don't want that, AFAICT. Some clearly want this API to be > unbiased against bytes in the same way the os APIs are unbiased[2], > because that's what we've got in the current proposal. Are we reading the same thread? For my last several replies I am very biased against bytes (and I know I'm not the only one). Just not so biased that I'm unwilling to let clients say, "No, I'm really okay with getting bytes back". I really like Koos' ideas because they allow the client to say: - I only want str - I only want bytes - I'm okay with either If the client says "I'm okay with either" then I fully expect the client to have code to properly handle str vs bytes after the fspath (or whatever it's called) call. -- ~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