On 9/5/06, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The whole idea of a default encoding is flawed. Ideally there would be
> > no default; programmers should be forced to think about the issue
> > on a case-by-case basis. In some cases t
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 06:09:21PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 9/4/06, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >--- email database file ---
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >--- / ---
> >
> > The program opens the file in "r+" mode, reads it line by line and
> >stores the
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 03:08:21AM -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
> Windows users do not "tell each program separately about the
> encoding." The encoding varies by file type. It makes no more sense to
> have a global variable that says "all of my files are Shift-JIS" than
> it does to say "all of my f
"Paul Prescod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows users do not "tell each program separately about the
> encoding." The encoding varies by file type.
There are lots of Unix file types which are based on text files
and their encoding is not specified explicitly.
> It makes no more sense to hav
But how would a system-wide default encoding help with any of these
situations? These situations are IN FACT caused by system-wide default
encodings used by naive programmers. Python should be part of the
solution, not part of the problem.
On 9/6/06, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 03:55:04AM -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
> But how would a system-wide default encoding help with any of these
> situations? These situations are IN FACT caused by system-wide default
> encodings used by naive programmers. Python should be part of the
> solution, not part of th
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Why would it matter? If most of their programs use UTF-8, and it's
> specified by the locale, then fine. My system uses mostly ISO-8859-2,
> and it's also fine, as long as there is a way for the program to get
> that information.
The problem is that blindly using
On 9/6/06, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>These situations are caused because of the lack of metadata or clear
> encoding-friendly standards. Ogg, for example, is encoding friendly - it
> clearly states that tags (comments) must be in UTF-8, and all Ogg Vorbis
> files I have saw wer
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 9/4/06, David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> > I've always said (can someone find a quote perhaps?) that there ought
>> > to be a sensible default encoding for files (including but not limited
>> > to stdin/out/err), perhaps influenc
On 9/4/06, David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue is not simplicity of implementation; it is what will provide
> the simplest usage model in the long term. If new files are encoded in X
> just because most of a user's existing files are encoded in X, then how is
> the user supposed t
On 9/6/06, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Paul Prescod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Windows users do not "tell each program separately about the
> > encoding." The encoding varies by file type.
>
> There are lots of Unix file types which are based on text files
> and
On 9/6/06, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 03:55:04AM -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
>These situations are caused because of the lack of metadata or clear
> encoding-friendly standards. Ogg, for example, is encoding friendly - it
> clearly states that tags (comme
On 9/6/06, Michael Urman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... I suspect the best option is some sort of TextFile
> constructor that defaults to ASCII (or has no default) but accepts an
> easy way to use the "recommended" or system encoding, or any explicit
> one.
That's exactly what I'm asking for.
On 9/4/06, David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> I would prefer that there is no default. But since that is incompatible
> with the existing API for open(), I accept that I'm not likely to win
> that argument.
First, can you outline how the proposal of no default is incompatible
with the
On 9/6/06, Paul Prescod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/6/06, Michael Urman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... I suspect the best option is some sort of TextFile
> > constructor that defaults to ASCII (or has no default) but accepts an
> > easy way to use the "recommended" or system encoding, or
Jim Jewett wrote:
> On 9/4/06, David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The issue is not simplicity of implementation; it is what will provide
>> the simplest usage model in the long term. If new files are encoded in X
>> just because most of a user's existing files are encoded in X, then
>>
16 matches
Mail list logo
