On 17 December 2016 at 08:24, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > I am beginning to think that `from __future__ import unicode_literals` does > more harm than good. I don't recall exactly why we introduced it, but with > the restoration of u"" literals in Python 3.3 we have a much better story > for writing straddling code that is unicode-correct. > > The problem is that the future import does both too much and not enough -- > it does too much because it changes literals to unicode even in contexts > where there is no benefit (e.g. the argument to getattr() -- I still hear of > code that breaks due to this occasionally) and at the same time it doesn't > do anything for strings that you read from files, receive from the network, > or even from other files that don't use the future import. > > I wonder if we can add an official note to the 2.7 docs recommending against > it? (And maybe even to the 3.x docs if it's mentioned there at all.) I think thats a good idea. I've found u"" to be entirely sufficient and very robust. Perhaps also have python2 -3 report on it? -Rob
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