> In the first paragraph, you should make it clear that Python 3.0 does > not use the Windows bytes interfaces, if it doesn't. "Python uses > *only* the wide character APIs..." would suffice.
That's not quite exact. It uses both ANSI and Wide APIs - depending on whether you pass bytes as input or strings. Please see the Python source code to find out how this works, and what that means. > As stated, it seems > like Python *does* use the wide character APIs, but leaves open the > possibility that it might use byte APIs also. A short description of > what happens on Windows when Python code uses bytes APIs would also be > helpful. I'm at a loss how to make the text more clear than it already is. I'm really not good at writing long essays, with a lot of explanatory-but-non-normative text. I also think that explanations do not belong in the section titled specification, nor does a full description of the status quo belongs into the PEP at all. The reader should consult the current Python source code if in doubt what the status quo is. > In the second paragraph, it speaks of "currently" but then speaks of > using the half-surrogates. I don't believe that happens "currently". > You did change tense, but that paragraph is quite confusing, currently, > because of the tense change. You should describe there, the action that > is currently taken by Python for non-decodable byes, and then in the > next paragraph talk about what the PEP changes. Thanks, fixed. > The 4th paragraph is now confusing too... would it not be the decode > error handler that returns the byte strings, in addition to the Unicode > strings? No, why do you think so? That's intended as stated. > The 5th paragraph has apparently confused some people into thinking this > PEP only applies to locale's using UTF-8 encodings; you should have an > "else clause" to clear that up, pointing out that the reverse encoding > of half-surrogates by other encodings already produces errors, that > UTF-8 is a special case, not the only case. I have fixed that by extending the third paragraph. > The code added to the discussion has mismatched (), making me wonder if > it is complete. There is a reasonable possibility that only the final ) > is missing. Indeed; this is now also fixed. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
