On 25 Aug 2014 03:55, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> Yes on #1 -- making the low-level functions more usable for edge cases by
supporting bytes seems fine (as long as the support for strings, where it
exists, is not compromised).
Thanks!
> The status of pathlib is a little unclear to me -- is the
Yes on #1 -- making the low-level functions more usable for edge cases by
supporting bytes seems fine (as long as the support for strings, where it
exists, is not compromised).
The status of pathlib is a little unclear to me -- is there a plan to
eventually support bytes or not?
For #2 I think yo
On 25 August 2014 00:23, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le 24/08/2014 09:04, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
>> Serhiy & Ezio convinced me to scale this one back to a proposal for
>> "codecs.clean_surrogate_escapes(s)", which replaces surrogates that
>> may be produced by surrogateescape (that's what string.clean
Le 24/08/2014 09:04, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
On 24 August 2014 14:44, Nick Coghlan wrote:
2. Should we add some additional helpers to the string module for
dealing with surrogate escaped bytes and other techniques for
smuggling arbitrary binary data as text?
My proposal [3] is to add:
* string
On 24 August 2014 14:44, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 2. Should we add some additional helpers to the string module for
> dealing with surrogate escaped bytes and other techniques for
> smuggling arbitrary binary data as text?
>
> My proposal [3] is to add:
>
> * string.escaped_surrogates (constant with
