[Python-Dev] PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349? [ Was:Re: release plan for 2.5 ?] (original) (raw)
"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Tue Feb 14 07:47:13 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349? [ Was:Re: release plan for 2.5 ?]
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349? [ Was:Re: release plan for 2.5 ?]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
We're talking about Py3k here: "abc" will be a Unicode string, so why restrict the conversion to 7 bits when you can have 8 bits without any conversion problems ?
YAGNI. If you have a need for byte string in source code, it will typically be "random" bytes, which can be nicely used through
bytes([0x73, 0x9f, 0x44, 0xd2, 0xfb, 0x49, 0xa3, 0x14, 0x8b, 0xee])
For larger blocks, people should use base64.string_to_bytes (which can become a synonym for base64.decodestring in Py3k).
If you have bytes that are meaningful text for some application (say, a wire protocol), it is typically ASCII-Text. No protocol I know of uses non-ASCII characters for protocol information.
Of course, you need a way to get .encode output as bytes somehow, both in 2.5, and in Py3k. I suggest writing
bytes(s.encode(encoding))
In 2.5, bytes() can be constructed from strings, and will do a conversion; in Py3k, .encode will already return a string, so this will be a no-op.
Regards, Martin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349? [ Was:Re: release plan for 2.5 ?]
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349? [ Was:Re: release plan for 2.5 ?]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]