On 23 Apr 2013 05:50, "Lennart Regebro" <regebro@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> As others have pointed out in the past, repeatedly, the codec system is
> completely general and can transform bytes->bytes and text->text just as
> easily as bytes<->text.

Yes, but the encode()/decode() methods are not, and the fact that you
now know what goes in and what comes out means that people get much
fewer Decode/EncodeErrors. Which is a good thing.

//Lennart
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fabiosantosart%40gmail.com
">

(original) (raw)

Using decode() and encode() would break that predictability. But someone suggested the use of transform() and untransform() instead. That would clarify that the transformation is bytes > bytes and Unicode string > Unicode string.

On 23 Apr 2013 05:50, "Lennart Regebro" <regebro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
\> As others have pointed out in the past, repeatedly, the codec system is
\> completely general and can transform bytes->bytes and text->text just as
\> easily as bytes<->text.

Yes, but the encode()/decode() methods are not, and the fact that you
now know what goes in and what comes out means that people get much
fewer Decode/EncodeErrors. Which is a good thing.

//Lennart
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fabiosantosart%40gmail.com