On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:06:37PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > I've already explained why we have .encode() and .decode() > methods on strings and Unicode many times. I've also > explained the misunderstanding that can codecs only do > Unicode-string conversions. And I've explained that > the .encode() and .decode() method *do* check the return > types of the codecs and only allow strings or Unicode > on return (no lists, instances, tuples or anything else). > > You seem to ignore this fact.
Actually, I think the problem is that while we all agree the bytestring/unicode methods are a useful way to convert from bytestring to unicode and back again, we disagree on their *general* usefulness. Sure, the codecs mechanism is powerful, and even more so because they can determine their own returntype. But it still smells and feels like a Perl attitude, for the reasons already explained numerous times, as well: - The return value for the non-unicode encodings depends on the value of the encoding argument. - The general case, by and large, especially in non-powerusers, is to encode unicode to bytestrings and to decode bytestrings to unicode. And that is a hard enough task for many of the non-powerusers. Being able to use the encode/decode methods for other tasks isn't helping them. That is why I disagree with the hypergeneralization of the encode/decode methods, regardless of the fact that it is a natural expansion of the implementation of codecs. Sure, it looks 'right' and 'natural' when you look at the implementation. It sure doesn't look natural, to me and to many others, when you look at the task of encoding and decoding bytestrings/unicode. -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! _______________________________________________ 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
