3 ms·
> Remind me why things like u"" couldn't be used to help cover exist codebases? It’s right there in the Zen of Python: “Purity beats practicality”. Wait, no...
by pansa2 5y ago
> Remind me why things like u"" couldn't be used to help cover exist codebases?
It’s right there in the Zen of Python: “Purity beats practicality”. Wait, no...
- whoknowswhat11 5y agoThe part that was so annoying is that if unicode is great - then letting us use the nonconflicting u"" would have let us bring 2.0 libraries into 3.0 land much more easily while ALSO improving 2.x libraries. And with no pain really. If they needed to they could have a done a --compat flag. It wasn't until 3.3 and then 3.4 that there was finally some give. We got u"" back. We also go some ability to handle the net (ASCII / Binary Transform stuff) in a quasi sensible way. But boy - was it a screw you until then. And I got seriously tired of having folks who don't actually maintain any code lecturing on and on about how this was the better way. Sure - if you are in a monorepo. But not if you are library author supporting endless versions of python!
- busterarm 5y agoIt's partly that but partly completely not understanding how hopelessly broken their packaging system is and the burden that's put on popular library authors that encourages them to have extremely wide compatibility.