Hi, René Dudfield schrieb: > I think that shows that they are being handled differently depending > on type. Which is against polymorphism... but some people prefer to > have separate functions for different types(in and out). I don't > think other python functions do this though. So maybe this is a one > off, and could be considered a bug... I'm not sure why they did it > this way. The fact that urldecode and urlparse does not provide a byte-only implementation is something I would consider a bug. After all that module is called "urlparse" and not "iriparse".
> Here is a snippet from the compat.py we used to port pygame to support > python2.3 through 3.1 How is that related? > Arguments against using bytes (and using unicode instead). > > So I'm -1 on using b'' all over the place since it's not in both > versions of python, and makes it impossible for code bases to share > the same code for multiple versions of python. That would not matter much because the high-level applications never see what's under the hood. Besides web2py all frameworks and libraries I know about are using unicode internally anyways. > Argument for using bytes: There are many more. It's suppose to be byte based everywhere because that's how these protocols work. There is no magic unicode layer in HTTP that solves all of our problems. - URLs are byte based, URLs are untrusted - WSGI 1.0 was byte based, API wise that means the smallest change - Frameworks don't have to be totally rewritten because they already have their own unicode conversion functions. - Except the application, nothing knows about the real encoding information. Graham's suggestion for URL encodings means that the URL encoding would ahve to be passed to the WSGI server from outside (he proposed the apache config as an example). This means that the application behavior will change based on the server configuration, causing even more confusion. Let us ignore 2to3 and syntax problem for a minute. These are a lot less complex than the actual encoding problems. Also it is very, very unlikely that applications will be able to go through 2to3 and continue to work because there is just too much stuff that changes. b'' vs '' is really the smallest issue we have with WSGI currently. Change behavior of the bytes object and a semi-unicode aware standard library are the biggest problems in my opinion. Regards, Armin _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
