[Python-Dev] Use of coding cookie in 3.x stdlib (original) (raw)
Alexander Belopolsky alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 01:21:10 CEST 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Fast Implementation for ZIP decryption
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Use of coding cookie in 3.x stdlib
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I was looking at the inspect module and noticed that it's source starts with "# -- coding: iso-8859-1 --". I have checked and there are no non-ascii characters in the file. There are several other modules that still use the cookie:
Lib/ast.py:# -- coding: utf-8 -- Lib/getopt.py:# -- coding: utf-8 -- Lib/inspect.py:# -- coding: iso-8859-1 -- Lib/pydoc.py:# -- coding: latin-1 -- Lib/shlex.py:# -- coding: iso-8859-1 -- Lib/encodings/punycode.py:# -- coding: utf-8 -- Lib/msilib/init.py:# -- coding: utf-8 -- Lib/sqlite3/init.py:#-- coding: ISO-8859-1 -- Lib/sqlite3/dbapi2.py:#-- coding: ISO-8859-1 -- Lib/test/bad_coding.py:# -- coding: uft-8 -- Lib/test/badsyntax_3131.py:# -- coding: utf-8 --
I understand that coding: utf-8 is strictly redundant in 3.x. There are cases such as Lib/shlex.py where using encoding other than utf-8 is justified. (See http://svn.python.org/view?view=rev&revision=82560). What are the guidelines for other cases? Should redundant cookies be removed? Since not all editors respect the -*- cookie, I think the answer should be "yes" particularly when the cookie is setting encoding other than utf-8.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Fast Implementation for ZIP decryption
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Use of coding cookie in 3.x stdlib
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]