On 28 Aug 2014, at 19:54, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/28/2014 10:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman
v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
[...]
Also for
cases where the data stream is *supposed* to be in a given encoding,
but
contains undecodable bytes.
Glenn Linderman writes:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
And further, replacement could be a vector of 128 characters, to do
immediate transcoding,
Using what encoding?
The vector would contain the transcoding. Each lone
On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
How about:
replace_surrogate_escapes(s,
On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
How about:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com
wrote:
On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
On
On 8/28/2014 10:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com
wrote:
On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
On
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:54:44 -0700, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com
wrote:
On 8/28/2014 10:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com
wrote:
On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
There'll be a surrogate escape if a byte
On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
purge_surrogate_escapes was the other term that occurred to me.
purge suggests removal, not replacement. That may be useful too.
neutralize_surrogate_escapes(s, remove=False,
Glenn Linderman writes:
On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
How about:
replace_surrogate_escapes(s, replacement='\uFFFD')
If you want them removed, just pass an empty string as the
replacement.
That
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
How about:
replace_surrogate_escapes(s, replacement='\uFFFD')
If you want them
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
purge_surrogate_escapes was the other term that occurred to me.
purge suggests removal, not replacement. That may be useful too.
neutralize_surrogate_escapes(s, remove=False, replacement='\uFFFD')
How about:
Nick Coghlan writes:
purge_surrogate_escapes was the other term that occurred to me.
purge suggests removal, not replacement. That may be useful too.
neutralize_surrogate_escapes(s, remove=False, replacement='\uFFFD')
maybe? (Of course the remove argument is feature creep, so I'm only
On 24 August 2014 14:44, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Should we add some additional helpers to the string module for
dealing with surrogate escaped bytes and other techniques for
smuggling arbitrary binary data as text?
My proposal [3] is to add:
* string.escaped_surrogates
Le 24/08/2014 09:04, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
On 24 August 2014 14:44, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Should we add some additional helpers to the string module for
dealing with surrogate escaped bytes and other techniques for
smuggling arbitrary binary data as text?
My proposal [3]
On 25 August 2014 00:23, Antoine Pitrou anto...@python.org wrote:
Le 24/08/2014 09:04, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
Serhiy Ezio convinced me to scale this one back to a proposal for
codecs.clean_surrogate_escapes(s), which replaces surrogates that
may be produced by surrogateescape (that's what
Yes on #1 -- making the low-level functions more usable for edge cases by
supporting bytes seems fine (as long as the support for strings, where it
exists, is not compromised).
The status of pathlib is a little unclear to me -- is there a plan to
eventually support bytes or not?
For #2 I think
On 25 Aug 2014 03:55, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Yes on #1 -- making the low-level functions more usable for edge cases by
supporting bytes seems fine (as long as the support for strings, where it
exists, is not compromised).
Thanks!
The status of pathlib is a little unclear to
At Guido's request, splitting out two specific questions from Serhiy's
thread where I believe we could do with an explicit yes or no from
him.
1. Should we accept patches adding support for the direct use of bytes
paths in lower level filesystem manipulation APIs? (i.e. everything
that isn't
18 matches
Mail list logo
