On 1/3/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Jan 2, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > Are you at least okay with base64, quopri, and uu going? You are just
> > arguing for the saving of binascii, right?
> >
> > Does anyone else care to try to save binascii?
>
> base64 and quopri implement specific RFCs so I think they should
> stay. uu implements a defacto standard, but I don't like its
> interface (it uses file-like objects instead of strings). For Py3K,
> I would be in favor of consolidating things, making interfaces
> consistent, and probably re-homing the modules under a top-level
> package.
Agreed. Although I very rarely (if ever) use these modules, my
immediate reaction when I saw these was "OK, so if I needed to do
this, how would I?" The answer may be to use encodings, but I'm not
sure. At the very least, a note along the lines of
uu.encode/decode - replace with str.{en/de}code("uu")
would clarify that while the module is going, the functionality isn't.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
