On Sat, Feb 18, 2006, Ron Adam wrote: > > I like the bytes.recode() idea a lot. +1 > > It seems to me it's a far more useful idea than encoding and decoding by > overloading and could do both and more. It has a lot of potential to be > an intermediate step for encoding as well as being used for many other > translations to byte data. > > I think I would prefer that encode and decode be just functions with > well defined names and arguments instead of being methods or arguments > to string and Unicode types. > > I'm not sure on exactly how this would work. Maybe it would need two > sets of encodings, ie.. decoders, and encoders. An exception would be > given if it wasn't found for the direction one was going in.
Here's an idea I don't think I've seen before: bytes.recode(b, src_encoding, dest_encoding) This requires the user to state up-front what the source encoding is. One of the big problems that I see with the whole encoding mess is that so much of it contains implicit assumptions about the source encoding; this gets away from that. -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis _______________________________________________ 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
