encode and decode builtins

[Ben Finney]

Garrett Berg <googberg at gmail.com> writes:

> I made the switch to python 3 about two months ago, and I have to say
> I love everything about it, *especially* the change to using only
> bytes and str (no more unicode! or... everything is unicode!) As
> someone who works with embedded devices, it is great to know what data
> I am working with.

THanks! It is great to hear from people directly benefiting from this
clear distinction.

> However, there are times that I do not care what data I am working
> with, and I find myself writing something like:
>
> if isinstance(data, bytes): data = data.decode()

Why are you in a position where ‘data’ is not known to be bytes? If you
want ‘unicode’ objects, isn't the API guaranteeing to provide them?

> This is tedious and breaks the pythonic method of not caring about
> what your input is.

I wouldn't call that Pythonic. Rather, in the face of ambiguity (“is
this text or bytes?”), Pythonic code refuses the temptation to guess:
you need to clarify what you have as early as possible in the process.

> If I expect that my input can always be decoded into valid data, then
> why do I have to write this?

I don't know. Why do you have to?

-- 
 \     “God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to |
  `\     explain those things that you do not understand.” —Richard P. |
_o__)                                                    Feynman, 1988 |
Ben Finney