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
17 matches
Mail list logo
