M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-10-01 09:54, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 September 2008, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> On 2008-09-30 08:00, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > >>>> Change the default file system encoding to store bytes in Unicode is > >>>> like introducing a new Python type: <fake Unicode for filename hacks>. > >>> Exactly. Seems like the best solution to me, despite your polemics. > >> Not a bad idea... have os.listdir() return Unicode subclasses that work > >> like file handles, ie. they have an extra buffer that holds the original > >> bytes value received from the underlying C API. > > > > Why does it have to be a Unicode subclass? In my eyes, a Unicode object > > promises a few things, in particular that it contains a Unicode string. If > > it > > now suddenly contains bytes without any further meaning, that would be bad. > > Please read my entire email. I was proposing to store the underlying > non-decodeable byte string value in such a subclass. The Unicode value > of the object would then be that underlying value decoded as e.g. > Latin-1 in order to be able to work on it as text.
I'm actually sort of liking this idea. A Pathname class, for convenience a subtype of String, but containing the underlying binary representation used by the OS. Even non-unicode pathnames could be represented. Bill _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
