Terry Reedy wrote: > "Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >> Which is why I think that only *unicode* codings should be >> available through the .encode and .decode interface. Or >> alternatively there should be something more explicit like >> .unicode_encode and .unicode_decode that is thus restricted. > > I prefer the shorter names and using recode, for instance, for bytes to > bytes.
While I prefer constructors with an explicit encode argument, and use a recode() method for 'like to like' coding. Then the whole encode/decode confusion goes away. _______________________________________________ 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
