On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> Please don't get rid of unicode+literals -- I don't even think we should > depreciate it as a recommendation or discourage it. > > Maybe a note or two added as to where issues may arise would be good. > > I've found importing unicode_literals to be an excellent way to write > py2/3 code. And I have never found a problem. > > I'm also hoping that my py2/3 compatible code will someday be py3 only -- > and then I'll be really glad that I don't have all those u" all over the > place. > > Also it does "automagically" do the right thing with, for instance passing > a literal to the file handling functions in the os module -- so that's > pretty nice. > > The number of times you need to add a b"" is FAR fewer than "text" string > literals. Let's keep it. > > -CHB > > Same thing here... also, it helps coding with the same mindset of Python 3, where everything is unicode by default -- and yes, there are problems if you use a unicode in an API that accepts bytes on Python 2, but then, you can also have the same issues on Python 3 -- you need to know and keep track on the bytes vs unicode everywhere (although they're syntactically similar to declare, they're not the same thing) and I find that there are less places where you need to put b'' than u'' (if you code with unicode in mind in Python 2)... On the ideal world, Python 2 would actually be improved to accept unicode on the places where Python 3 accepts unicode (such as subprocess.Popen, etc) to make it easier in porting applications that actually do the "right" thing on Python 2 to go to Python 3. Best Regards, Fabio
_______________________________________________ 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
