Guido van Rossum writes:
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Greg Ewing writes:
So maybe the way to make bytes paths go away is to always
use surrogateescape for paths on unix?
Backward compatibility rules that out, I think. I certainly
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
Unix programmers, though, shouldn't be shielded from bytes.
Nobody's trying to do that. But Python users should be shielded from
Unix programmers.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org writes:
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
Unix programmers, though, shouldn't be shielded from bytes.
Nobody's trying to do that. But Python users should be shielded from
Unix programmers.
+1 QotW
--
\“Intellectual property is to the 21st century
On 20 August 2014 07:53, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org writes:
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
Unix programmers, though, shouldn't be shielded from bytes.
Nobody's trying to do that. But Python users should be shielded from
Unix programmers.
On 20 Aug 2014 04:18, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
On 08/19/2014 01:43 PM, Ben Hoyt wrote:
Fair enough. I don't quite understand, though -- why is the official
policy to kill something that's essential on *nix?
ISTM that the policy is based
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,
On Wed Aug 20 2014 at 9:02:25 AM Antoine Pitrou anto...@python.org 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
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
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
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.
The problem with scandir() in particular is that there is
currently *no* low-level API exposed that gives the same
functionality.
If
On 21 Aug 2014 08:19, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
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.
The problem with scandir() in particular is that there is
but disallowing them in higher level
explicitly cross platform abstractions like pathlib.
I think the trick here is that posix-using folks claim that filenames are
just bytes, and indeed they can be passed around with a char*, so they seem
to be.
but you can't possible do anything other
On 21 Aug 2014 09:06, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
As I understand it, the whole problem with some posix systems is that
there is NO filesystem encoding -- i.e. you can't know for sure what
encoding a filename is in. So you need to be able to pass the bytes through
as they are.
On 08/20/2014 03:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014 08:19, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz
mailto:greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I think if you want low-level features (such as unconverted bytes paths under
POSIX), it is reasonable to point you to
On 21 August 2014 09:33, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 08/20/2014 03:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014 08:19, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz
mailto:greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I think if you want low-level features (such as
On 08/20/2014 05:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 21 August 2014 09:33, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 08/20/2014 03:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
scandir is low level (the entire os module is low level). In fact, aside
from pathlib, I'd consider pretty much every
API we have that deals
Le 18/08/2014 03:02, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org
mailto:ba...@python.org wrote:
On Aug 16, 2014, at 07:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
(Don't understand this to mean that we should never deprecate things.
Deprecations
If scandir is low-level, and the low-level API's are the ones that should
support bytes paths, then scandir should support bytes paths.
Is that what you meant to say?
Yes. The discussions around PEP 471 *deferred* discussions of bytes
and file descriptor support to their own RFEs (not
Nick Coghlan writes:
One idea I had along those lines is a surrogatereplace error handler (
http://bugs.python.org/issue22016) that emitted an ASCII question mark for
each smuggled byte, rather than propagating the encoding problem.
Please, don't.
Smuggled bytes are not independent
On 20Aug2014 16:04, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
but disallowing them in higher level
explicitly cross platform abstractions like pathlib.
I think the trick here is that posix-using folks claim that filenames are
just bytes, and indeed they can be passed around
19 matches
Mail list logo
