On 9 Jan 2014 22:08, "Antoine Pitrou" <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:03:40 -0500 > Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > They emphatically do not want the Python 2 > > model especially not implicit coercion. They only want additional > > tools for text or string processing in Python 3. > > That's a good point. Now it's up to people who need those additional > tools to propose them. We can't second-guess everyone's needs.
Note that I've tried to find prettier ways to write the standard library's URL parsing code. In addition to the original alternatives I explored, I'm currently experimenting with a generic function based approach with mixed results. I'm reserving judgement until I see how the completed conversion looks, but currently it doesn't seem any simpler than my current higher order function approach. However, the implicit conversions are *critical* to sharing constants between the two code paths in Python 2 without coercing bytes to str or vice-versa (disabling the implicit coercion breaks Unicode handling), so I'm still not sure the goal is achievable without creating a new type *specifically* for that task. Python 3 only code is generally much simpler - you can usually pick binary or text and just support one of them, rather than trying to support both in the same API. Cheers, Nick. > > Regards > > Antoine. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
