[Python-Dev] Bytes path related questions for Guido (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun Aug 24 06:44:36 CEST 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Bytes path support
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Bytes path related questions for Guido
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At Guido's request, splitting out two specific questions from Serhiy's thread where I believe we could do with an explicit "yes or no" from him.
- Should we accept patches adding support for the direct use of bytes paths in lower level filesystem manipulation APIs? (i.e. everything that isn't pathlib)
This was Serhiy's original question (due to some open issues [1,2]). I think the answer is yes, as we already do in some cases, and the "pathlib doesn't support binary paths" design decision is a high level platform independent API vs low level potentially platform dependent API one rather than being about disallowing the use of bytes paths in general.
[1] http://bugs.python.org/issue19997 [2] http://bugs.python.org/issue20797
- Should we add some additional helpers to the string module for dealing with surrogate escaped bytes and other techniques for smuggling arbitrary binary data as text?
My proposal [3] is to add:
- string.escaped_surrogates (constant with the 128 escaped code points)
- string.clean(s): replaces surrogates with '\ufffd' or another specified code point
- string.redecode(s, encoding): encodes a string back to bytes and then decodes it again using the specified encoding (the old encoding defaults to 'latin-1' to match the assumptions in WSGI)
"s != string.clean(s)" would then serve as a check for "does this string contain any surrogate escaped bytes?"
[3] http://bugs.python.org/issue18814#msg225791
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Bytes path support
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Bytes path related questions for Guido
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]