(original) (raw)

On Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 09:33 R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:06:21 +1200, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
\> On 13 Sep 2014 10:18, "Jeff Allen" <ja.py@farowl.co.uk> wrote:
\> > 4\. I think (with Antoine) if Jython supported PEP-383 byte smuggling, it
\> would have to do it the same way as CPython, as it is visible. It's not
\> impossible (I think), but is messy. Some are strongly against.
\>
\> It may be worth trying \*without\* it (i.e. treat "surrogateescape" as
\> equivalent to "strict" initially), and seeing how you go. The main purpose
\> of surrogateescape in CPython 3 is to recreate the "arbitrary 8-bit data
\> round trips work on POSIX" aspect of CPython 2, which doesn't apply in
\> exactly the same way on Jython.
\>
\> Compared to the 8-bit vs 16-bit str discrepancy that exists in Python 2,
\> "surrogateescape is equivalent to strict" seems like a relatively small
\> discrepancy in behaviour.

That would totally break the email package.

It would of course be possible to rewrite email to not use surrogate
escape, but it is a seriously non-trivial undertaking.

\--David
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/tlesher%40gmail.com