On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 00:43 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
We know at least there will never be a 2.10, so I think we still have
time.
because there's no way to count to 10 if you only have one digit?
we used to think that back when the
Guido == Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guido I think that the implementation of encoding-guessing or
Guido auto-encoding-upgrade techniques should be left out of the
Guido standard library design for now.
As far as I can see, little new design is needed. There's no
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
We know at least there will never be a 2.10, so I think we still have
time.
because there's no way to count to 10 if you only have one digit?
we used to think that back when the gas price was just below 10 SEK/L,
but they found a way...
IIRC
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:43:50 -0500, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
We know at least there will never be a 2.10, so I think we still have
time.
because there's no way to count to 10 if you only have one digit?
we used to think that back
Bengt Richter wrote:
because there's no way to count to 10 if you only have one digit?
we used to think that back when the gas price was just below 10 SEK/L,
but they found a way...
IIRC Guido is on record as saying There will be no Python 2.10 because
I hate the ambiguity of
On 2/15/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Olsen wrote:
Making it an error to have 8-bit str literals in 2.x would help
educate the user that they will change behavior in 3.0 and not be
8-bit str literals anymore.
You would like to ban string literals from the language?
Barry Warsaw wrote:
We know at least there will never be a 2.10, so I think we still have
time.
because there's no way to count to 10 if you only have one digit?
we used to think that back when the gas price was just below 10 SEK/L,
but they found a way...
/F
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 06:13:53PM +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
We know at least there will never be a 2.10, so I think we still have
time.
because there's no way to count to 10 if you only have one digit?
we used to think that back when the gas price was just below
Adam Olsen wrote:
My assumption is these would become errors in 3.x. bytes(str) is only
needed so you can do bytes(uabc.encode('utf-8')) and have it work in
2.x and 3.x.
I think the proposal for bytes(seq) to mean bytes(map(ord, seq))
was meant to be valid for both 2.x and 3.x, on the grounds
Greg Ewing wrote:
If the protocol has been sensibly designed, that shouldn't
happen, since everything up to the coding marker should
be ascii (or some other protocol-defined initial coding).
XML, for one protocol, requires you to restart over. The
initial sequence could be UTF-16, or it could
On 2/15/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Olsen wrote:
(I wonder if maybe they should be an error in 2.x as well. Source
encoding is for unicode literals, not str literals.)
Source encoding applies to the entire source code, including (byte)
string literals, comments,
Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
(Why would you even think about views here? They are evil.)
I mention views because that's what numpy/Numeric/numarray/etc.
do... It's certainly convenient at times to have that functionality,
for example, to work
Fred == Fred L Drake, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fred On Tuesday 14 February 2006 22:34, Greg Ewing wrote:
Seems to me this is a case where you want to be able to change
encodings in the middle of reading the stream. You start off
reading the data as ascii, and once you've
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:13:25 -0800, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about to send 6 or 8 replies to various salient messages in the
PEP 332 revival thread. That's probably a sign that there's still a
lot to be sorted out. In the mean time, to save you reading through
all those
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:41:07 -0500, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Somewhat controversial:
- bytes(abc) == bytes(map(ord, abc))
At first glance, this seems obvious and necessary, so if it's somewhat
controversial, then I'm missing something. What's the issue?
Guido van Rossum wrote:
- it's probably too big to attempt to rush this into 2.5
After reading some of the discussion, and seen some of the arguments,
I'm beginning to feel that we need working code to get this right.
It would be nice if we could get a bytes() type into the first alpha, so
the
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:59PM +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
After reading some of the discussion, and seen some of the arguments,
I'm beginning to feel that we need working code to get this right.
It would be nice if we could get a bytes() type into the first alpha, so
the design can get
Thomas Wouters wrote:
After reading some of the discussion, and seen some of the arguments,
I'm beginning to feel that we need working code to get this right.
It would be nice if we could get a bytes() type into the first alpha, so
the design can get some real-world exposure in
I'm actually assuming to put this off until 2.6 anyway.
On 2/15/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Wouters wrote:
After reading some of the discussion, and seen some of the arguments,
I'm beginning to feel that we need working code to get this right.
It would be nice
Guido wrote:
I'm actually assuming to put this off until 2.6 anyway.
makes sense.
(but will there be a 2.6? isn't it time to start hacking on 3.0?)
/F
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 01:09 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
(but will there be a 2.6? isn't it time to start hacking on 3.0?)
We know at least there will never be a 2.10, so I think we still have
time.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:20:16 -0800, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm actually assuming to put this off until 2.6 anyway.
On 2/15/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Wouters wrote:
After reading some of the discussion, and seen some of the arguments,
I'm
I'm about to send 6 or 8 replies to various salient messages in the
PEP 332 revival thread. That's probably a sign that there's still a
lot to be sorted out. In the mean time, to save you reading through
all those responses, here's a summary of where I believe I stand.
Let's continue the
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm about to send 6 or 8 replies to various salient messages in the
PEP 332 revival thread. That's probably a sign that there's still a
lot to be sorted out. In the mean time, to save you reading through
all those responses, here's a
On 2/14/06, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
- we need a new PEP; PEP 332 won't cut it
- no b... literal
- bytes objects are mutable
- bytes objects are composed of ints in range(256)
- you can pass any iterable of ints
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 03:13:25PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Martin von Loewis's alternative for the very controversial set is to
disallow an encoding argument and (I believe) also to disallow Unicode
arguments. In 3.0 this would leave us with s.encode(encoding) as the
only way to
[Guido van Rossum]
Somewhat controversial:
- bytes(abc) == bytes(map(ord, abc))
At first glance, this seems obvious and necessary, so if it's somewhat
controversial, then I'm missing something. What's the issue?
Raymond
___
Python-Dev mailing
Bob Ippolito wrote:
Martin von Loewis's alternative for the very controversial set is to
disallow an encoding argument and (I believe) also to disallow Unicode
arguments. In 3.0 this would leave us with s.encode(encoding) as the
only way to convert a string (which is always unicode) to bytes. The
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 2/14/06, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
- we need a new PEP; PEP 332 won't cut it
- no b... literal
- bytes objects are mutable
- bytes objects are composed of ints in
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
- bytes(abc) == bytes(map(ord, abc))
At first glance, this seems obvious and necessary, so if it's somewhat
controversial, then I'm missing something. What's the issue?
There is an implicit Latin-1 assumption in that code. Suppose
you do
# -*- coding: koi-8r -*-
Thomas Wouters wrote:
The encoding of network streams or files may be
entirely unknown beforehand, and depend on the content: a content-encoding,
a META EQUIV HTML tag. Will bytes-strings get string methods for easy
searching of content descriptors?
Seems to me this is a case where you want
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm about to send 6 or 8 replies to various salient messages in the
PEP 332 revival thread. That's probably a sign that there's still a
lot to be sorted out. In the mean time, to save you reading through
all those responses, here's a summary of where I believe I stand.
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
The proper response in this case is often to re-start decoding
with the correct encoding, since some of the data extracted so far may have
been decoded incorrectly.
If the protocol has been sensibly designed, that shouldn't
happen, since everything up to the coding
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 01:44, Greg Ewing wrote:
If the protocol has been sensibly designed, that shouldn't
happen, since everything up to the coding marker should
be ascii (or some other protocol-defined initial coding).
Indeed.
For protocols that are not sensibly designed (or if
34 matches
Mail list logo
