Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

Here at PDG (Brazil) we are migrating our software to Djang 1.4 and already using unicode_literals. I can count in my fingers places that I needed to use 'b' for byte code string (most on settings.py). In my experience, maintain byte code strings isn't that hard and we should than go to option 2.

Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

I would also prefer Option 2, as the places where str('...') are needed are not all that many. Regards, Vinay Sajip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

> 2012/8/22 VernonCole : > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:03:57 PM UTC-6, DrMeers wrote: >> >> It's a shame we couldn't skip straight to Python 3.3 and take >> advantage of PEP414... > > That seems to me (in my dark status as a lurker here) to be a brilliant > idea. Well,

Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

Python 3.2 is a default python in Ububtu 12.04 LTS so I think Python 3.2 support is pretty important. And what are the gains of having "u" prefixes all over the codebase? This makes the codebase less Python3-like. With PEP414-based code there must be explicit "b" and explicit "u" prefixes all

Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

That seems to me (in my dark status as a lurker here) to be a brilliant idea. It is already established practice to say something like: "version 1.n of django requires 2.m or later of Python". The practice then would change to: "version 1.n of django requires 2.m of Python or 3.3 or later". I

Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

It's a shame we couldn't skip straight to Python 3.3 and take advantage of PEP414... On 22 August 2012 07:32, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Aymeric Augustin > wrote: >> In my opinion, option (2) is a logical

Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > In my opinion, option (2) is a logical move at this point. However I > believe it deserves a public discussion (or at least an explanation). > What do you think? I prefer option 2 as well, because it

Re: Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

On 21 elo, 13:46, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > Hello, > > The first steps of porting Django to Python 3 was to switch on > unicode_literals, as explained here [1]. This change was discussed in > ticket #18269 [2] and committed in changeset 4a103086d5 [3]. > > This

Python 3: should we apply unicode_literals everywhere?

Hello, The first steps of porting Django to Python 3 was to switch on unicode_literals, as explained here [1]. This change was discussed in ticket #18269 [2] and committed in changeset 4a103086d5 [3]. This changeset added `from __future__ import unicode_literals` only where necessary, ie. in