On Feb 17, 2006, at 8:33 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote: > > Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >>>>>>>> "Guido" == Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Guido> - b = bytes(t, enc); t = text(b, enc) >>> >>> +1 The coding conversion operation has always felt like a >>> constructor >>> to me, and in this particular usage that's exactly what it is. I >>> prefer the nomenclature to reflect that. >> >> This also has the advantage that it competely >> avoids using the verbs "encode" and "decode" >> and the attendant confusion about which direction >> they go in. >> >> e.g. >> >> s = text(b, "base64") >> >> makes it obvious that you're going from the >> binary side to the text side of the base64 >> conversion. > > But you aren't always getting *unicode* text from the decoding of > bytes, > and you may be encoding bytes *to* bytes: > > b2 = bytes(b, "base64") > b3 = bytes(b2, "base64") > > Which direction are we going again?
This is *exactly* why the current set of codecs are INSANE. unicode.encode and str.decode should be used *only* for unicode codecs. Byte transforms are entirely different semantically and should be some other method pair. -bob _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
