On approximately 4/28/2009 1:25 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Martin v. Löwis:
The UTF-8b representation suffers from the same potential ambiguities as
the PUA characters...
Not at all the same ambiguities. Here, again, the two choices:
A. use PUA characters to represent undecodable bytes, in particular for
UTF-8 (the PEP actually never proposed this to happen).
This introduces an ambiguity: two different files in the same
directory may decode to the same string name, if one has the PUA
character, and the other has a non-decodable byte that gets decoded
to the same PUA character.
B. use UTF-8b, representing the byte will ill-formed surrogate codes.
The same ambiguity does *NOT* exist. If a file on disk already
contains an invalid surrogate code in its file name, then the UTF-8b
decoder will recognize this as invalid, and decode it byte-for-byte,
into three surrogate codes. Hence, the file names that are different
on disk are also different in memory. No ambiguity.
C. File on disk with the invalid surrogate code, accessed via the str
interface, no decoding happens, matches in memory the file on disk with
the byte that translates to the same surrogate, accessed via the bytes
interface. Ambiguity.
--
Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
===========================
A protocol is complete when there is nothing left to remove.
-- Stuart Cheshire, Apple Computer, regarding Zero Configuration Networking
_______________________________________________
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
