Hi,
On 2/28/12 12:16 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
> Armin, I propose that you correct the *factual* deficits of the PEP
> (i.e. remove all claims that cannot be supported by facts, or are otherwise
> incorrect or misleading). Many readers here would be more open to accepting
> the PEP if it was factual rather than polemic.
Please don't call this PEP polemic.
> The PEP author is supposed to collect all arguments, even the ones he
> doesn't agree with, and refute them.
I brought up all the arguments that were I knew about before I submitted
this mailinglist thread and I had since not updated it.
> In this specific issue, the PEP states "the unicode_literals import the
> native string type is no longer available and has to be incorrectly
> labeled as bytestring"
>
> This is incorrect: even though the native string type indeed is no longer
> available, it is *not* consequential that it has to be labeled as byte
> string. Instead, you can use the str() function.
Obviously it means not available by syntax.
> It may be that you don't like that solution for some reason. If so, please
> mention the approach in the PEP, along with your reason for not liking it.
If by str() you mean using "str('x')" as replacement for 'x' in both 2.x
and 3.x with __future__ imports as a replacement for native string
literals, please mention why this is better than u(), s(), n() etc. It
would be equally slow than a custom wrapper function and it would not
support non-ascii characters.
Regards,
Armin
_______________________________________________
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
