(original) (raw)

On 14 Jan 2014 19:11, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
\>
\> Nick Coghlan writes:
\>
\> �> "Give up" makes it sound like I got tired of arguing without being
\> �> convinced rather than admitting I was just plain wrong.
\>
\> I thought it was something in between (you explicitly said "lenient
\> PEP 460" doesn't hurt you, but my understanding was you still believe
\> that there's a safer way, and it's the latter you aren't going to try
\> to convince folks of).

I did say that at one point (when Guido first objected to the formatb idea), but I switched to complete agreement after he pointed out the ASCII assumption embedded in the formatting syntax itself.

>
\> �> While I'll still work on the asciistr proposal,
\>
\> Thank you for that. �I really wish I had time to, myself, but not for
\> several weeks... :-(

Heh, depending on how many quirky edge cases we find, we may still be working on it by then, especially since there are still a few docs updates and other fixes I want to get into Python 3.4.

> �> that's unrelated to PEP 460 - it's about making hybrid APIs less
\>
\> "It" refers to asciistr or to PEP 460?

asciistr

> �> painful to write in Python 3 when you're willing to place the
\> �> burden of ensuring ASCII compatibility of binary data on the
\> �> calling code.
\>
\> Versus what?

Versus doing explicit decoding the way urllib.parse does - it only accepts strict 7-bit ASCII as binary input by default, so you have to decode to text externally in order to handle arbitrary input that may contain other bytes.

Cheers,
Nick.

>