Now you're just splitting hairs, Nick.
An explicit operator, %s, _defined_ to be "encode a string object using strict
ascii",
how is that any less explicit than the .encode('ascii', 'strict') spelt out in
full? The language is full of constructs that are shorthands for others, more
lengthy but equivalent things.
I mean, basically what I am suggesting is that in addition to %b with
def helper(o):
return str(o).encode('ascii', 'strict')
b'foo%bbar'%(helper(myobj), )
you have
b'foo%sbar'%(myobj, )
There is no "data driven change in assumptions." Just an interpolation operator
with a clearly defined meaning.
I don't think anyone is trying to compromise the text model. All people are
asking for is that the _boundary_ is made a little easier to deal with.
K
________________________________
From: Nick Coghlan [ncogh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 16:09
To: Kristján Valur Jónsson
Cc: python-dev@python.org; Georg Brandl
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake
It is not explicit, it is implicit - whether or not the resulting string
assumes ASCII compatibility or not depends on whether you pass a binary value
(no assumption) or a string value (assumes ASCII compatibility). This kind of
data driven change in assumptions about correctness is utterly unacceptable in
the core text and binary types in Python 3.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
