On approximately 4/28/2009 10:52 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Martin v. Löwis:
C. File on disk with the invalid surrogate code, accessed via the str
interface, no decoding happens, matches in memory the file on disk with
the byte that translates to the same surrogate, accessed via the bytes
interface. Ambiguity.
Is that an alternative to A and B?
I guess it is an adjunct to case B, the current PEP.
It is what happens when using the PEP on a system that provides both
bytes and str interfaces, and both get used.
Your formulation is a bit too stenographic to me, but please trust me
that there is *no* ambiguity in the case you construct.
No Martin, the point of reviewing the PEP is to _not_ trust you, even
though you are generally very knowledgeable and very trustworthy. It is
much easier to find problems before something is released, or even
coded, than it is afterwards.
By "accessed via the str interface", I assume you do something like
fn = "some string"
open(fn)
You are wrong in assuming "no decoding happens", and that "matches
in memory the file on disk" (whatever that means - how do I match
a file on disk in memory??????). What happens instead is that fn
gets *encoded* with the file system encoding, and the python-escape
handler. This will *not* produce an ambiguity.
You assumed, and maybe I wasn't clear in my statement.
By "accessed via the str interface" I mean that (on Windows) the wide
string interface would be used to obtain a file name. Now, suppose that
the file name returned contains "abc" followed by the half-surrogate
U+DC10 -- four 16-bit codes.
Then, ask for the same filename via the bytes interface, using UTF-8
encoding. The PEP says that the above name would get translated to
"abc" followed by 3 half-surrogates, corresponding to the 3 UTF-8 bytes
used to represent the half-surrogate that is actually in the file name,
specifically U+DCED U+DCB0 U+DC90. This means that one name on disk can
be seen as two different names in memory.
Now posit another file which, when accessed via the str interface, has
the name "abc" followed by U+DCED U+DCB0 U+DC90.
Looks ambiguous to me. Now if you have a scheme for handling this case,
fine, but I don't understand it from what is written in the PEP.
If you think there is an ambiguity in that you can use both the
byte interface and the string interface to access the same file:
this would be a ridiculous interpretation. *Of course* you can
access /etc/passwd both as "/etc/passwd" and b"/etc/passwd",
there is nothing ambiguous about that.
Yes, this would be a ridiculous interpretation of "ambiguous".
--
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
