On Wed Aug 20 2014 at 9:02:25 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:
> Le 20/08/2014 07:08, Nick Coghlan a écrit : > > > > It's not just the JVM that says text and binary APIs should be separate > > - it's every widely used operating system services layer except POSIX. > > The POSIX way works well *if* everyone reliably encodes things as UTF-8 > > or always uses encoding detection, but its failure mode is unfortunately > > silent data corruption. > > > > That said, there's a lot of Python software that is POSIX specific, > > where bytes paths would be the least of the barriers to porting to > > Windows or Jython. I'm personally +1 on consistently allowing binary > > paths in lower level APIs, but disallowing them in higher level > > explicitly cross platform abstractions like pathlib. > > I fully agree with Nick's position here. > > To elaborate specifically about pathlib, it doesn't handle bytes paths > but allows you to generate them if desired: > https://docs.python.org/3/library/pathlib.html#operators > > Adding full bytes support to pathlib would have added a lot of > complication and fragility in the implementation *and* in the API (is it > allowed to combine str and bytes paths? should they have separate > classes?), for arguably little benefit. > > I think if you want low-level features (such as unconverted bytes paths > under POSIX), it is reasonable to point you to low-level APIs. > +1 from me as well. Allowing the low-level stuff work on bytes but keeping high-level actually high-level keeps with our consenting adults policy as well as making things possible, but not at the detriment of the common case.
_______________________________________________ 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
