On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Simon Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Plus, even on Linux Unicode is *usually* what you should be doing, >> unless you're writing a backup tool. > > I still find this line of reasoning a bit worrying. Imagine an end > user application like a music player. The user discovers that he can't > see some .mp3 or .ogg file from the music player that is visibile is > the file manager. I would expect him to file a bug on the music > player. If the bug was closed with "fix the filename" I imagine the > user would respond with "but other programs can access it just fine".
I see nothing wrong with this scenario. If undecodable filenames are a common thing then the authors of the music player should be using the bytes variant of the API, and if they get enough bugs like this they will fix their code to do so. OTOH if this is not common the response "rename the file" is totally reasonable -- you have to prioritize your bugs or else you'll never get any software released, and the occasional work-around is a given. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
