Ned Batchelder ned at nedbatchelder.com
Mon Dec 15 20:19:54 EST 2014

• Previous message (by thread): Re: Portable code: ‘from __future__ import unicode_literals’ a good idea? (was: Portable code: __import__ demands different string types between 2 and 3)
• Next message (by thread): Portable code: ‘from __future__ import unicode_literals’ a good idea?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On 12/15/14 7:42 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> As for the advice to avoid such a declaration, you're arguing against
> the official guide for porting Python 2 code to 2-and-3 compatible code:
>
>      For text you should either use the from __future__ import
>      unicode_literals statement or add a u prefix to the text literal.
>
>      <URL:https://docs.python.org/3.4/howto/pyporting.html#text-versus-binary-data>
>
> So, the declarative import is specifically recommended. You'll need to
> present a case for why I shouldn't follow that recommendation.

What's wrong with this part of the recommendation?: "or add a u prefix 
to the text literal."

Also, keep in mind, these recommendations are not infallible.  They are 
sometimes written before there's been broad experience with the 
solution.  Your use of __import__ puts you in a tiny minority of 
programs, so the recommendation that's good for 99% of code may not work 
for you.

Be flexible.  Do what works.

-- 
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com

---

• Previous message (by thread): Re: Portable code: ‘from __future__ import unicode_literals’ a good idea? (was: Portable code: __import__ demands different string types between 2 and 3)
• Next message (by thread): Portable code: ‘from __future__ import unicode_literals’ a good idea?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-list mailing list