On 8/20/2014 9:01 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le 20/08/2014 07:08, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
It's not just the JVM that says text and binary APIs should be separate
- it's every widely used operating system services layer except POSIX.
The POSIX way works well *if* everyone reliably encodes things as UTF-8
or always uses encoding detection, but its failure mode is unfortunately
silent data corruption.
That said, there's a lot of Python software that is POSIX specific,
where bytes paths would be the least of the barriers to porting to
Windows or Jython. I'm personally +1 on consistently allowing binary
paths in lower level APIs, but disallowing them in higher level
explicitly cross platform abstractions like pathlib.
I fully agree with Nick's position here.
To elaborate specifically about pathlib, it doesn't handle bytes paths
but allows you to generate them if desired:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/pathlib.html#operators
Adding full bytes support to pathlib would have added a lot of
complication and fragility in the implementation *and* in the API (is it
allowed to combine str and bytes paths? should they have separate
classes?), for arguably little benefit.
I am glad you did not recreate the madness of pre 3.0 Python in that regard.
I think if you want low-level features (such as unconverted bytes paths
under POSIX), it is reasonable to point you to low-level APIs.
Do our docs somewhere explain the idea that files names are conceptually
*names*, not arbitrary bytes; explain the concept of low-level versus
high-level API' and point to the two types of APIs in Python?
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
