Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Tres Seaver writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/15/2014 12:57 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > > asciistr *canonizes* something as an ASCII string, and therefore > > compatible with both bytes and str. It can't *create* such a thing > > ex nihilo. >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/15/2014 12:57 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > asciistr *canonizes* something as an ASCII string, and therefore > compatible with both bytes and str. It can't *create* such a thing > ex nihilo. How many miracles must be attested? Tres. - -

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Steven D'Aprano writes: > I thought I understand the purpose of asciistr was exactly that, to > produce something that was compatible with both bytes and strings. asciistr *canonizes* something as an ASCII string, and therefore compatible with both bytes and str. It can't *create* such a thing

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Steven D'Aprano wrote: I don't think mixing bytes and strings makes good semantic sense. It's not about mixing bytes and text -- it's about writing polymorphic code that will work on either bytes *or* text. Not both at the same time. If we had quantum computers, this would be easy to solve: a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:03:13PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: > >That way lies the Python 2 text model, and we're not going there. It's > >probably best to think of asciistr as a way of demonstrating a > >rhetorical point about the superiority of the Python 3 text model > >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:16:17AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Hm. It is beginning to sound more and more flawed. I also worry that > it will bring back the nightmare of data-dependent UnicodeError back. > E.g. this (from tests/basic.py): > > def test_asciistr_will_not_accept_codepoints_

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Nick Coghlan wrote: On 15 Jan 2014 08:00, "Greg Ewing" > wrote: > > If so, would it help if asciistr were a built-in > type, so that other things could be made aware of > it? That way lies the Python 2 text model, and we're not going there. It's probabl

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Yep - that's why I consider asciistr to be firmly in the "power tool" > category. If you know what you're doing, it should let you write hybrid API > code that is just as concise as Python 2, but it's also far more error prone > than the core

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 15 Jan 2014 08:14, "Greg Ewing" wrote: > > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> Actually, Nick explained that asciistr() + asciistr() returns str, > > > That part seems wrong to me, because it means that > you can't write polymorphic byte/string functions > that are composable. > > I would be -1 on th

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Guido van Rossum wrote: Actually, Nick explained that asciistr() + asciistr() returns str, That part seems wrong to me, because it means that you can't write polymorphic byte/string functions that are composable. I would be -1 on that, and prefer that asciistr + asciistr --> asciistr. -- Greg

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 15 Jan 2014 08:00, "Greg Ewing" wrote: > > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> def spam(a): >> r = asciistr('(') >> if a: r += a.strip() >> r += asciistr(')') >> return r >> >> The general fix would be to add >> >> else: r += a[:0] > > > The awkwardness might be reducable if asci

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Guido van Rossum wrote: def spam(a): r = asciistr('(') if a: r += a.strip() r += asciistr(')') return r The general fix would be to add else: r += a[:0] The awkwardness might be reducable if asciistr let you write something like r = asciistr('(', a) meaning "give me

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 15 Jan 2014 04:16, "Guido van Rossum" wrote: > > [Other readers: asciistr is at https://github.com/jeamland/asciicompat] > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Right, asciistr is designed for a specific kind of hybrid API where > > you want to accept binary input (and pr

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

[Other readers: asciistr is at https://github.com/jeamland/asciicompat] On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Right, asciistr is designed for a specific kind of hybrid API where > you want to accept binary input (and produce binary output) *and* you > want to accept text input (

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Here's an example of what I mean: I sent that off without proofreading, and I also got one detail about asciistr() wrong. Here are some corrections. > def spam(a): > r = asciistr('(') > if a: r += a.strip() > r += asciistr(')

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Greg Ewing wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> I've now looked at asciistr. (Thanks Glenn and Ethan for the link.) >> >> Now that I (hopefully) understand it, I'm worried that a text >> processing algorithm that uses asciistr might under hard-to-predict >> circ

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 14 Jan 2014 19:11, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: > > Nick Coghlan writes: > > > "Give up" makes it sound like I got tired of arguing without being > > convinced rather than admitting I was just plain wrong. > > I thought it was something in between (you explicitly said "lenient > PEP 460" does

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Nick Coghlan writes: > "Give up" makes it sound like I got tired of arguing without being > convinced rather than admitting I was just plain wrong. I thought it was something in between (you explicitly said "lenient PEP 460" doesn't hurt you, but my understanding was you still believe that ther

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Guido van Rossum wrote: I've now looked at asciistr. (Thanks Glenn and Ethan for the link.) Now that I (hopefully) understand it, I'm worried that a text processing algorithm that uses asciistr might under hard-to-predict circumstances (such as when the arguments contain nothing of interest to t

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 14 January 2014 16:04, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I've now looked at asciistr. (Thanks Glenn and Ethan for the link.) > > Now that I (hopefully) understand it, I'm worried that a text > processing algorithm that uses asciistr might under ha

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 14 January 2014 15:15, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> The purity position is probably going to lose in the end, since Guido >> is clearly in the PBP camp at this point, and that's a strong >> indicator (especially since Nick has given up on

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/13/2014 8:58 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Glenn Linderman writes: > On 1/13/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> Glenn Linderman writes: >>> "smuggled binary" (great term borrowed from a different >>> subthread) muddies the waters of what you are dealing with. >> Not rea

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/13/2014 09:12 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: In contrast, here's the tests I drew up for what I thought bytes should do for us (no code, just tests): https://bitbucket.org/stoneleaf/bytestring Ugh. Ignore for now, I need to update them to re

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 14 January 2014 15:15, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > The purity position is probably going to lose in the end, since Guido > is clearly in the PBP camp at this point, and that's a strong > indicator (especially since Nick has given up on convincing > python-dev). But that does not mean it's ent

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: In contrast, here's the tests I drew up for what I thought bytes should do for us (no code, just tests): https://bitbucket.org/stoneleaf/bytestring -- ~Ethan~ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@p

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Sorry to butt in, but can you post a link to the asciistr code? Google has too many hits for other things to be useful to find it, it seems. https://github.com/jeamland/asciicompat -- ~Ethan~ ___ Pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/13/2014 9:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Sorry to butt in, but can you post a link to the asciistr code? Google has too many hits for other things to be useful to find it, it seems. https://github.com/jeamland/asciicompat ___ Python-Dev mailing l

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Greg Ewing writes: > I don't think of my viewpoint as being PBP. That term > assumes there is purity there to be beaten. To my mind, > any notion of purity with respect to bytes objects > went out the window as soon as it was given a pile > of text methods -- together with a text-like literal

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Sorry to butt in, but can you post a link to the asciistr code? Google has too many hits for other things to be useful to find it, it seems. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Glenn Linderman writes: > On 1/13/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> Glenn Linderman writes: >>> "smuggled binary" (great term borrowed from a different >>> subthread) muddies the waters of what you are dealing with. >> Not really. The "mud" is one or more of the serious deficiencie

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/13/2014 4:06 PM, Greg Ewing wrote: of text methods -- together with a text-like literal syntax and default repr(), even though at least half the time they're completely inappropriate! Better said as 'half the time they're coincidentally helpful!' My $.01 :) Emile __

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: PBP doesn't think it's a great idea to pass around bytes that are implicitly some other type, but didn't mind it (or got used to it) in Python 2, and so they're not looking at that as a problem that Python 3 can solve. They're looking at Python 3 as the problem that pr

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/13/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Glenn Linderman writes: > On 1/12/2014 4:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> Glenn Linderman writes: >>> the proposals to embed binary in Unicode by abusing Latin-1 >>> encoding. >> Those aren't "proposals", they are currently feasible

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/13/2014 02:48 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Ethan Furman writes: The part that you don't seem to acknowledge (sorry if I missed it) is that there are str-like methods already on bytes. I haven't expressed myself well, but I don't much care about that. You don't care that there are st

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Glenn Linderman writes: > On 1/12/2014 4:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> Glenn Linderman writes: >>> the proposals to embed binary in Unicode by abusing Latin-1 >>> encoding. >> Those aren't "proposals", they are currently feasible >> techniques in Python 3 for *some* use cases. The qu

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Ethan Furman writes: > The part that you don't seem to acknowledge (sorry if I missed it) > is that there are str-like methods already on bytes. I haven't expressed myself well, but I don't much care about that. It's what Knuth would classify as a seminumerical method. What I do care about is

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/12/2014 4:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Glenn Linderman writes: > the proposals to embed binary in Unicode by abusing Latin-1 > encoding. Those aren't "proposals", they are currently feasible techniques in Python 3 for *some* use cases. The question is why infecting Python 3 with

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/12/2014 8:00 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: Okay, I've thought somewhat. Under the definition above would it be fair to say that Db3Table (a class in my dbf module) is a boundary type? It sits between the actual file and the program, and transforms bytes into actual Python types. Yes. Tha

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 02:32 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: I've just tried asciistr using your test code (having corrected the typo, it's assertIsInstance, not assertIsinstance :) and it looks like a very good starting point. Have you, or anyone else for that matter, actually tried asciistr out? Ah, than

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 08:27 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Ethan Furman writes: On 01/12/2014 02:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: I didn't trim enough to make my point clear. My apologies. But knowledge of ASCII isn't necessary to specify these methods; they can be defined in an encoding/decodin

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 07:02 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: [snip most of very eloquent reply] Thank you, Stephen, for remaining calm despite my somewhat heated response. A few comments in-line. I now better understand your viewpoint about text always being unicode strings; I just happen to disagree.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Ethan Furman writes: > On 01/12/2014 02:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > No, Nick's point is that there's no encoding needed there are all, > > just a bunch of methods that handle numbers in the range 0-255. You > > can rationalize the particular choice of numbers by referring to the >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Those still arguing on this thread might want to look at the thread "PEP 460 reboot". -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://m

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 2014-01-11 22:09, Nick Coghlan wrote: > For Python 2 folks trying to grok where the "bright line" is in terms of > the Python 3 text model: if your proposal includes *any* kind of > implicit serialisation of non binary data to binary, it is going to be > rejected as an addition to the core bytes

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Ethan Furman writes: > 1) Are you saying it's okay to be insulting when frustrated? I >also find this mega-thread frustrating, but I'm trying >very hard not to be insulting. OK, no. Understandable, yes. > 2) If you are going to use my name, please be certain of the facts >[1].

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Glenn Linderman writes: > the proposals to embed binary in Unicode by abusing Latin-1 > encoding. Those aren't "proposals", they are currently feasible techniques in Python 3 for *some* use cases. The question is why infecting Python 3 with the byte/character confoundance virus is preferable t

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 02:52 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: You are right, it is not ok. The wording wasn't constructive or controlled at all. I'd like to apologize for that. Thank you. Apology accepted. At the same point, I was expressing a fair amount of frustration. I think the last discussion rounds

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 02:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Ethan Furman writes: Nothing else is ideal. I'll go that route if I have to. I understand that in the real world you go with what works, but in the development stage you fight for the ideal. :) You're going to lose, because Python 3 chose

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/12/2014 2:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > But bytes already acknowledges an ASCII bias. True, but that bias is implemented without use of encoding or decoding. b'%d' % (123,) -> b'123' does require encoding, at the very least in the sense of type change and serialization. b'%d' all

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Ethan Furman writes: > Nothing else is ideal. I'll go that route if I have to. I > understand that in the real world you go with what works, but in > the development stage you fight for the ideal. :) You're going to lose, because Python 3 chose a different ideal that conflicts with yours.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Hi Ethan, On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:28:15 -0800 Ethan Furman wrote: > On 01/12/2014 12:02 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > Georg Brandl writes: > >> Antoine writes: > >>> > >>> . . . if it weren't for your stupid maximalist opposition. . . > >> > >> Can you please stop throwing personal insults a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12/01/2014 17:03, Ethan Furman wrote: On 01/12/2014 08:21 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: On 01/12/2014 08:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 13 Jan 2014 01:22, "Kristján Valur Jónsson" wrote: Imho, this is not equivalent to re-introducing automatic type conversion between binary/unicode, it is adding

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 January 2014 22:10, Greg Ewing wrote: > I think the readability argument becomes a bit sharper when > you consider more complex examples, e.g. if I have a tuple > of 3 floats that I want to put into a PDF file, then > >b"%f %f %f" % my_floats > > is considerably clearer than > >b" ".

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Mark Lawrence wrote: I entirely agree. This would also parallel the conversion flags given here http://docs.python.org/3/library/string.html#format-string-syntax, I quote "Three conversion flags are currently supported: '!s' which calls str() on the value, '!r' which calls repr() and '!a' whic

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Ethan Furman wrote: Your asciistr, which sometimes returns bytes and sometimes returns text, is absolutely *not* what we want. The kind of third-party thing that *might* fill the bill would be a *function*: bytesformat(b"Content-Length: %d", length) that implements all the %-specifiers we'

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Paul Moore wrote: On 12 January 2014 18:26, Ethan Furman wrote: I'm arguing from three PoVs: 1) 2 & 3 compatible code base 2) having the bytes type /be/ the boundary type 3) readable code The only one of these that I can see being in any way an argument against def int_to_bytes(n): retu

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/12/2014 11:14 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: And a core principle of the bytes/text separation in Python 3 is that encoding should never happen implicitly. That could be. And yet the bytes type already has several concessions to ASCII encoding. "%d" % 26 => an explicit request to convert bina

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 01:37 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: Right. I'm saying, let's support two interpolators only: %b interpolates a bytes object (or one supporting the charbuffer interface) into a bytes object. %s interpolates a str object by first converting to a bytes object using strict ascii c

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 01:06 PM, Greg Ewing wrote: Paul Moore wrote: I could easily argue at this point that this is the type of bug that having %-formatting operations on bytes would encourage - %s means "format a string" (from years of C and Python (text) experience) so I automatically supply a string

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

+1, even better. From: Python-Dev [[email protected]] on behalf of Mark Shannon [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 17:06 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

ytes. That way madness lies. K From: Paul Moore [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 17:04 To: Kristján Valur Jónsson Cc: Nick Coghlan; Georg Brandl; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake On 1

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 12:02 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Georg Brandl writes: Antoine writes: . . . if it weren't for your stupid maximalist opposition. . . Can you please stop throwing personal insults around? You don't have to resort to that level. Ethan's posts (as an example of one general

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Nick Coghlan wrote: On 13 Jan 2014 01:22, "Kristján Valur Jónsson" > wrote: > Well, my suggestion would that we _should_ make it work, by having the %s format specifyer on bytes objects mean: str(arg).encode('ascii', 'strict') > It is not explicit, it is impli

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12/01/2014 21:06, Greg Ewing wrote: Paul Moore wrote: I could easily argue at this point that this is the type of bug that having %-formatting operations on bytes would encourage - %s means "format a string" (from years of C and Python (text) experience) so I automatically supply a string arg

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Paul Moore wrote: I could easily argue at this point that this is the type of bug that having %-formatting operations on bytes would encourage - %s means "format a string" (from years of C and Python (text) experience) so I automatically supply a string argument when using %s in a bytes formattin

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Am 12.01.2014 20:30, schrieb Emile van Sebille: > On 01/12/2014 09:26 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> Can you give an example of code that is *nearly* acceptable to you, >> which works in Python 2 and 3 today, and explain what improvements you >> would like to see to it in order to use it instead of waiti

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Georg Brandl writes: > > if it weren't for your stupid maximalist opposition). > > Can you please stop throwing personal insults around? You don't have to > resort to that level. Ethan's posts (as an example of one general trend in this thread) are pretty frustrating, you have to admit. MA

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 11:30 AM, Emile van Sebille wrote: On 01/12/2014 09:26 AM, Paul Moore wrote: Can you give an example of code that is *nearly* acceptable to you, which works in Python 2 and 3 today, and explain what improvements you would like to see to it in order to use it instead of waiting for

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 January 2014 19:30, Emile van Sebille wrote: > len(open('chars','wb').write("".join(map (chr,range(256.read()) Python 2: >>> len(open('chars','wb').write("".join(map (chr,range(256.read()) Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in AttributeError: 'NoneType' object h

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 11:00 AM, Paul Moore wrote: And yet I still don't follow what you *want*. Unless it's that b'%d' % (12,) must work and give b'12', and nothing else is acceptable. Nothing else is ideal. I'll go that route if I have to. I understand that in the real world you go with what works,

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 09:26 AM, Paul Moore wrote: Can you give an example of code that is *nearly* acceptable to you, which works in Python 2 and 3 today, and explain what improvements you would like to see to it in order to use it instead of waiting for a core change? I'm not a developer, but I'm try

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/11/2014 07:09 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Folks that want implicit serialisation (and I agree it has its uses) should go help Benno get asciistr up to speed. asciistr is not what I'm looking for in the way of a boundary type. I have created a 'bytestring'[1] repository which has the tests

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

I want to add one more PoV: small performance regression, especially on Python 2. Because programs that needs byte formatting may be low level and used heavily from application. Many programs uses one source approach to support Python 3. And supporting Python 3 should not means large performance r

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 January 2014 18:26, Ethan Furman wrote: > True enough! ;) It's unacceptable in the sense that the bytes type is > /almost/ there, it's /almost/ what is needed to handle the boundary > conditions. We have a __bytes__ method (how is it supposed to be used?) > that could be made to fit the i

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 09:26 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 12 January 2014 17:03, Ethan Furman wrote: We know full well the difference between unicode and bytes, and we know full well that numbers and much of the text we need has an ASCII (bytes!) representation. When we do a b'Content Length: %d' % len(bin

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 January 2014 17:03, Ethan Furman wrote: > We know full well the difference between unicode and bytes, and we know full > well that numbers and much of the text we need has an ASCII (bytes!) > representation. When we do a b'Content Length: %d' % len(binary_data) we > are expecting to get bac

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12/01/2014 17:06, Mark Shannon wrote: On 12/01/14 16:52, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: Now you're just splitting hairs, Nick. An explicit operator, %s, _defined_ to be "encode a string object using strict ascii", I don't like this because '%s' reads to me as "insert *string* here". I think

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

*From:* Nick Coghlan [[email protected]] *Sent:* Sunday, January 12, 2014 16:09 *To:* Kristján Valur Jónsson *Cc:* [email protected]; Georg Brandl *Subject:* Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake It is not explicit, it is implicit - whether or not the resultin

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 January 2014 16:52, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > I mean, basically what I am suggesting is that in addition to %b with > > def helper(o): > return str(o).encode('ascii', 'strict') > > b'foo%bbar'%(helper(myobj), ) > > you have > > b'foo%sbar'%(myobj, ) But that's not what the current

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 08:21 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: On 01/12/2014 08:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 13 Jan 2014 01:22, "Kristján Valur Jónsson" wrote: Imho, this is not equivalent to re-introducing automatic type conversion between binary/unicode, it is adding a specific convenience function for expli

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

_ From: Nick Coghlan [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 16:09 To: Kristján Valur Jónsson Cc: [email protected]; Georg Brandl Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake It is not explicit, it is implicit - whether or not the resulting

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/12/2014 08:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 13 Jan 2014 01:22, "Kristján Valur Jónsson" wrote: Imho, this is not equivalent to re-introducing automatic type conversion between binary/unicode, it is adding a specific convenience function for explicitly asking for ASCII encoding. It is not

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

> From: Python-Dev [[email protected]] on behalf of Georg Brandl [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 09:23 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake > > Am 12.01.2014 09:57,

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > Hi there. > How about a compromise? > Personally, I think adding the full complement of integer/float formatting to > bytes is a bit over the top. > How about just supporting two format specifiers? > %b : interpolate a bytes object.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

r ASCII encoding. K From: Python-Dev [[email protected]] on behalf of Georg Brandl [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 09:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake Am 12.01.2014 09:57

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 Jan 2014 22:10, "Paul Moore" wrote: > > On 12 January 2014 09:23, Georg Brandl wrote: > >> On 12 January 2014 01:01, Victor Stinner wrote: > >>> Supporting formating integers would allow to write b"Content-Length: > >>> %s\r\n" % 123, which would work on Python 2 and Python 3. > >> > >> I'

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 January 2014 09:23, Georg Brandl wrote: >> On 12 January 2014 01:01, Victor Stinner wrote: >>> Supporting formating integers would allow to write b"Content-Length: >>> %s\r\n" % 123, which would work on Python 2 and Python 3. >> >> I'm surprised that no-one is mentioning b"Content-Length: %

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Am 12.01.2014 09:57, schrieb Paul Moore: > On 12 January 2014 01:01, Victor Stinner wrote: >> Supporting formating integers would allow to write b"Content-Length: >> %s\r\n" % 123, which would work on Python 2 and Python 3. > > I'm surprised that no-one is mentioning b"Content-Length: %s\r\n" % >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 January 2014 01:01, Victor Stinner wrote: > Supporting formating integers would allow to write b"Content-Length: > %s\r\n" % 123, which would work on Python 2 and Python 3. I'm surprised that no-one is mentioning b"Content-Length: %s\r\n" % str(123) which works on Python 2 and 3, is explici

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 12 Jan 2014 03:44, "Victor Stinner" wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm in favor of adding support of formatting integer and floatting > point numbers in the PEP 460: %d, %u, %o, %x, %f with padding and > precision (%10d, %010d, %1.5f) and sign (%-i, %+i) but without > alternate format ("{:#x}"). %s would a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

lf of Serhiy Storchaka [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 21:01 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake 11.01.14 21:40, Kristján Valur Jónsson написав(ла): > How about a compromise? > Personally, I think adding the full co

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 1/11/2014 1:50 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: Perhaps that's the problem. According to the docs: object.__bytes__(self) Called by bytes() to compute a byte-string representation of an object. This should return a bytes o

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Hi, 2014/1/11 Antoine Pitrou : >> b'x=%s' % 10 is well defined, it's pure bytes. > > It is well-defined? Then please explain me what the general case of > b'%s' % x > is supposed to call: > > - does it call x.__bytes__? int.__bytes__ doesn't exist > - does it call bytes(x)? bytes(10) gives > b

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

2014/1/11 Ethan Furman : >>> b'x=%s' % 10 is well defined, it's pure bytes. >> >> It is well-defined? Then please explain me what the general case of >>b'%s' % x >> is supposed to call: > > This is the key question, isn't it? Python 2 and Python 3 are very different here. In Python 2, the "s"

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/11/2014 10:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:41:49 +0100 Victor Stinner wrote: b'x=%s' % 10 is well defined, it's pure bytes. It is well-defined? Then please explain me what the general case of b'%s' % x is supposed to call: This is the key question, isn't it?

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Am 11.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Serhiy Storchaka: > 11.01.14 21:40, Kristján Valur Jónsson написав(ла): >> How about a compromise? >> Personally, I think adding the full complement of integer/float formatting >> to bytes is a bit over the top. >> How about just supporting two format specifiers? >> %b

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

11.01.14 21:40, Kristján Valur Jónsson написав(ла): How about a compromise? Personally, I think adding the full complement of integer/float formatting to bytes is a bit over the top. How about just supporting two format specifiers? %b : interpolate a bytes object. If it doesn't have the buffer

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

Am 11.01.2014 20:22, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:38:01 -0800 > Ethan Furman wrote: >> On 01/11/2014 10:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:41:49 +0100 >> > Victor Stinner wrote: >> >> >> >> If you agree, I will modify the PEP. If Antoine disagree, I will

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On 01/11/2014 11:22 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:38:01 -0800 Ethan Furman wrote: On 01/11/2014 10:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:41:49 +0100 Victor Stinner wrote: If you agree, I will modify the PEP. If Antoine disagree, I will fork the PEP 460 ;-)

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 460: allowing %d and %f and mojibake

On Jan 11, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: >You've already stated you don't care that much and are willing to let the PEP >as-is be rejected. Why not remove your name and let Victor have it back? Is >he not the original author? (If this is protocol just say so -- remember I'm >still new

  1   2   >