[Web-SIG] WSGI for Python 3

[Chris McDonough]

On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 01:33 +0200, Armin Ronacher wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 7/17/10 1:20 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
>  > Let me know if I'm missing something.
> The only thing you miss is that the bytes type of Python 3 is badly 
> supported in the stdlib (not an issue if we reimplement everything in 
> our libraries, not an issue for me) and that the bytes type has no 
> string formattings which makes us do the encode/decode dance in our own 
> implementation so of the missing stdlib functions.

This is why the docs mention "bytes with benefits" instead (like the
Python 2 "str" type). The existence of such a type would be the result
of us lobbying for its inclusion into some future Python 3, or at least
the result of lobbying for a String ABC that would allow us to define
our own.

But.. yeah.  Stdlib support for bytes.  Dunno.   What I really don't
want to do is implement a WSGI spec in terms of Unicodey strings just
because the webby stuff in the stdlib cannot deal with bytes.  Those
stdlib implementations should be changed to deal with bytes-ish things
instead.  I actually think fixing the stdlib will end up being a driver
for the "bytes with benefits" type.  Supporting such a type in the
implementation of stdlib functions is clearly the right way to fix it in
lots of cases, because they will be able to deal with BwB and
Unicodey-strings in exactly the same way.

In the meantime, I think using bytes is the only sane thing to do in
some interim specification, because moving from a spec which is
bytes-oriented to a spec that is text-oriented now will leave us in the
embarrassing position of needing to create yet another bytes-oriented
spec later (as, well, I/O is bytes), when Python 3 matures and realizes
it needs such a hybrid type.

- C