3 ms·
> little enough documentation about the "proper" way to handle Unicode that I doubt that it will actually reduce Unicode-related bugs I won't claim here that t
by duckerude 6y ago
> little enough documentation about the "proper" way to handle Unicode that I doubt that it will actually reduce Unicode-related bugs
I won't claim here that the compatibility break was actually worth it, but I am sure that it reduces Unicode-related bugs.
It's easy to write Python 2 code that seems to work fine but immediately crashes when it has to process Unicode. But if your Python 3 code works at all it'll probably handle Unicode fine, or at least handle it better than naive Python 2 code would.
Whenever I have to write Python 2 code that has to handle Unicode, I mainly just try to write it so that it would be able to run in Python 3.
- takeda 6y ago> It's easy to write Python 2 code that seems to work fine but immediately crashes when it has to process Unicode. But if your Python 3 code works at all it'll probably handle Unicode fine, or at least handle it better than naive Python 2 code would. Yeah, that's the biggest benefit, and the reason python 3 handles it better, is because it crashes early. When it it sees that you are making an incompatible conversion, it refuses to run without waiting for some specific unicode character to show it. > Whenever I have to write Python 2 code that has to handle Unicode, I mainly just try to write it so that it would be able to run in Python 3. Thankfully I no longer have to write python 3 code, but from my experience, it works the best to write the code for python 3, then adapting it (sometimes with help of six package and imports from `__future__`) to work with 2.7. It is easier than do it the other way.