Portable code: ‘from __future__ import unicode_literals’ a good idea?
Ben Finney
ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Mon Dec 15 21:31:50 EST 2014
Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> writes:
> On 12/15/14 7:42 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As for the advice to avoid such a declaration, you're arguing against
> > the official guide for porting Python 2 code to 2-and-3 compatible code:
> >
> > For text you should either use the from __future__ import
> > unicode_literals statement or add a u prefix to the text literal.
> >
> > <URL:https://docs.python.org/3.4/howto/pyporting.html#text-versus-binary-data>
> >
> > So, the declarative import is specifically recommended. You'll need to
> > present a case for why I shouldn't follow that recommendation.
>
> What's wrong with this part of the recommendation?: "or add a u prefix
> to the text literal."
Who's saying there's anything wrong with that? Not I.
My question is, what's wrong with the first part such that Devin
recommends against it?
> Also, keep in mind, these recommendations are not infallible.
Yes, Devin clears up in a later message that the official guide provides
no advice for the case where an API needs ‘bytes’ in Python 2 but
Unicode in Python 3.
> Be flexible. Do what works.
Good advice, but nothing different from what I'm already trying to do.
--
\ “[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our |
`\ will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of |
_o__) others.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1819 |
Ben Finney
More information about the Python-list
mailing list