Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info>: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:01:25 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> In fact, I find the lazy use of Unicode strings at least as scary as >> the lazy use of byte strings, especially since Python 3 sneaks >> Unicode to the outer interfaces of the program (files, IPC). > > I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "lazy use of > Unicode strings". And I especially don't understand what you mean by > "sneak". The fact that strings are Unicode is *the* biggest and most > obvious new feature of Python 3.
I mean that sys.stdin and sys.stdout should deal with byte strings. I mean that open(path) should open a file in binary mode. Thankfully, the subprocess methods exchange bytes by default. To me, the main difference between Python 2 and Python 3 is that in the former, I use "..." everywhere, and in the latter, I use b"..." everywhere. If I should need advanced text processing features, I'll go through a decode() and encode(). > The Python devs aren't slaves, they get to choose what features they > work on and which they don't. They don't owe *anybody* any feature > they don't want to build, or care to support, and that includes > continuing the 2.x series. No need to erect straw men. Of course, the Python gods do whatever they want. And you asked me to clarify my opinion, which I did. The breakage of backward compatibility wasn't worth the new features. But as I said, what is done is done. We'll live with the reality. > As of right now, *new* projects ought to be written in Python 3.3 or > better, unless you have a compelling reason not to. You don't have to > port old projects in order to take advantage of Python 3 for new > projects. But my distro only provides Python 3.2. What's wrong with Python 3.2? Why didn't anybody tell me to put off the migration? Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
