> Or, maybe even better, the format could be given as third parameter of file
> open(); then any read or write operation would directly convert from/to the
> said format. What do you all think?
See the codecs.open() command as an alternative to open().
With all the hassles of encoding, I'm puzzled why anyone would use the
regular open() for anything but binary operations.
Malcolm
----- Original message -----
From: "spir" <denis.s...@gmail.com>
To: "Python tutor" <tutor@python.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:29:11 +0100
Subject: Re: [Tutor] Encoding
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:23:12 +0100
Giorgio <anothernetfel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One more question: Amazon SimpleDB only accepts UTF8.
[...]
> filestream = file.read()
> filetoput = filestream.encode('utf-8')
No! What is the content of the file? Do you think it can be a pure
python representation of a unicode text?
uContent = inFile.read().decode(***format***)
<process, if any>
outFile.write(uContent.encode('utf-8'))
input -->decode--> process -->encode--> output
This gives me an idea: when working with unicode, it would be cool to
have an optional format parameter for file.read() and write. So, the
above would be:
uContent = inFile.read(***format***)
<process, if any>
outFile.write(uContent, 'utf-8')
Or, maybe even better, the format could be given as third parameter of
file open(); then any read or write operation would directly convert
from/to the said format. What do you all think?
denis
--
________________________________
la vita e estrany
spir.wikidot.com
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
