On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:35:25 +0100, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> Just because some codecs don't fit into the string.decode() >> or bytes.encode() scenario doesn't mean that these codecs are >> useless or that the methods should be banned. > >No. The reason to ban string.decode and bytes.encode is that >it confuses users. Well, that's because of semantic overloading. Assuming you mean string as characters and bytes as binary bytes. The trouble is encoding and decoding have to have bytes to represent the coded info, whichever direction. Characters per se aren't coded info, so string.decode doesn't make sense without faking it with string.encode().decode() and bytes.encode() likewise first has to have a hidden .decode to become a string that makes sense to encode. And the hidden stuff restricts to ascii, for further grief :-( So yes, please ban string.decode and bytes.encode. And maybe introduce bytes.recode for bytes->bytes transforms? (strings don't have any codes to recode). Regards, Bengt Richter _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
