On approximately 12/8/2008 9:30 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If warnings were emitted, then files would not be silently ignored,
yet the program could still be used.
Yep, this is sounding useful.
PS: I'd like to see a similar warning issued when an access attempt
is made through os.environ to a variable that cannot be decoded.
And argv ? Seems like the warning technique could be useful for _any_
interface that has been traditionally bytes, because that's the kind of
characters that were, but now should move to (Unicode) characters.
The warnings could be the same, or very similar.
The question is if one global control should handle all types of bytes
problems, or if there should be individual controls for each bytes
problem, or both. I tend to believe in both; the paranoid can set
exactly the ones they've coded for, the aggressive can set the global
one. In this manner, new cases can be added to the global settings over
time, if more are discovered -- it should be documented to handle future
similar issues in a similar manner.
--
Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
===========================
A protocol is complete when there is nothing left to remove.
-- Stuart Cheshire, Apple Computer, regarding Zero Configuration Networking
_______________________________________________
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
