On Jun 21, 2010, at 04:16 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: >At 04:04 PM 6/21/2010 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: >>On Jun 21, 2010, at 01:24 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: >> >> >OTOH, one potential problem with having the encoding on the bytes object >> >rather than the ebytes object is that then you can't easily take > bytes >> >from a >> >socket and then say what encoding they are, without interfering with the >> >sockets API (or whatever other place you get the bytes from). >> >>Unless the default was the "I don't know" marker and you were able to set it >>after you've done whatever kind of application-level calculation you needed to >>do. > >True, but making it a separate type with a required encoding gets rid of the >magical "I don't know" - the "I don't know" encoding is just a plain old bytes >object. > >(In principle, you could then drop *all* the stringlike methods from >plain-old-bytes objects. If it's really text-in-bytes you want, you should >use an ebytes with the encoding specified.)
Yep, agreed! -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
