On 28 Aug 2014, at 19:54, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/28/2014 10:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman
wrote:
[...]
Also for
cases where the data stream is *supposed* to be in a given encoding,
but
contains undecodable bytes. Showing the stuff tha
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:54:44 -0700, Glenn Linderman
wrote:
> On 8/28/2014 10:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
> >>> There'll be a surrogate escape if a byte couldn't be decoded, but just
> >>
On 8/28/2014 10:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman
wrote:
On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wr
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700, Glenn Linderman
wrote:
> On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
> > On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >> On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>> Glenn Linderman writes:
> >>> > On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
> >>> > > On 2014-08-26
On 8/28/2014 12:30 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
> > On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >> Nick Coghlan writes:
> > How about:
> >
On 2014-08-28 05:56, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
> > On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >> Nick Coghlan writes:
> > How about:
> >
> > replace_surrogate_escapes
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Glenn Linderman writes:
> > > And further, replacement could be a vector of 128 characters, to do
> > > immediate transcoding,
> >
> > Using what encoding?
>
> The vector would contain the transcoding. Each
On 8/27/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
> > On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >> Nick Coghlan writes:
> > How about:
> >
> > replace_surrogate_escapes(s, replacement='\uFFFD')
> >
> > If you
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
> > On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >> Nick Coghlan writes:
> > How about:
> >
> > replace_surrogate_escapes(s, replacement='\uFFFD')
> >
> > If you want them removed, just pass an empty string as the
> > re
On 8/26/2014 4:31 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
> "purge_surrogate_escapes" was the other term that occurred to me.
"purge" suggests removal, not replacement. That may be useful too.
neutralize_surrogate_escapes(s, remove=False, replac
On 2014-08-26 03:11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
> "purge_surrogate_escapes" was the other term that occurred to me.
"purge" suggests removal, not replacement. That may be useful too.
neutralize_surrogate_escapes(s, remove=False, replacement='\uFFFD')
How about:
r
Nick Coghlan writes:
> "purge_surrogate_escapes" was the other term that occurred to me.
"purge" suggests removal, not replacement. That may be useful too.
neutralize_surrogate_escapes(s, remove=False, replacement='\uFFFD')
maybe? (Of course the remove argument is feature creep, so I'm only
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
At Guido's request, splitting out two specific questions from Serhiy's
thread where I believe we could do with an explicit "yes or no" from
him.
1. Should we accept patches adding support for the direct use of bytes
paths in lower level filesystem manipulation APIs? (i.e. everything
that isn't pat
18 matches
Mail list logo
