(original) (raw)

On Apr 18, 2016 2:50 PM, "Ethan Furman" <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
\>
\> On 04/18/2016 12:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
\>
\>> Koos Zevenhoven writes:
\>
\>
\>>> After all, we want something that's \*almost\* exclusively str.
\>>
\>>
\>> But we don't want that, AFAICT. Some clearly want this API to be
\>> unbiased against bytes in the same way the os APIs are unbiased\[2\],
\>> because that's what we've got in the current proposal.
\>
\>
\> Are we reading the same thread? For my last several replies I am very biased against bytes (and I know I'm not the only one).
\>
\> Just not so biased that I'm unwilling to let clients say, "No, I'm really okay with getting bytes back".
\>
\> I really like Koos' ideas because they allow the client to say:
\>
\> - I only want str
\> - I only want bytes
\> - I'm okay with either
\>
\> If the client says "I'm okay with either" then I fully expect the client to have code to properly handle str vs bytes after the fspath (or whatever it's called) call.

Don't we \*have\* to always support bytes because other programs can create filenames containing bytes?

>
\> --
\> \~Ethan\~
\>
\> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\> 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/wes.turner%40gmail.com