> 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