On 2/27/12 9:58 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
But the PEP doesn't address the unicode_literals plus str() approach.
That is, the rationale currently makes a false claim.
Which would be exactly what that u() does not do?
Armin, I propose that you correct the *factual* deficits of the PEP
(i.e. remove all claims that cannot be supported by facts, or are otherwise
incorrect or misleading). Many readers here would be more open to accepting
the PEP if it was factual rather than polemic. The PEP author is supposed
to collect all arguments, even the ones he doesn't agree with, and refute
them.
In this specific issue, the PEP states
"the unicode_literals import the native string type is no longer
available and has to be incorrectly labeled as bytestring"
This is incorrect: even though the native string type indeed is no longer
available, it is *not* consequential that it has to be labeled as byte
string. Instead, you can use the str() function.
It may be that you don't like that solution for some reason. If so, please
mention the approach in the PEP, along with your reason for not liking it.
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
