Greg Ewing wrote: > One of the arguments being used against automatic > unicode->char * using ascii as the encoding seems > to be that it can cause your module to fail at run > time. > > But how is this different from using an explicit > encoding operation? It can *still* fail at run time > if the unicode string passed can't be represented > in the chosen encoding.
I agree that that's not an argument. The main arguments IMHO are that a) you can't be sure that you are actually looking at an ASCII-compatible string (i.e. ISO or UTF-8 encoded) and b) this makes it very easy to write buggy code that works perfectly until someone passes non-ASCII characters. I find it helpful to prevent writing such code right from the beginning, rather than requiring manual fixing when the problem comes up. I think that was one of the main reasons why the types were separated for Py3. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
