GeezerVison

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>
>
> I am very worried about this long and rambling PEP,
>

FWIW, I read the PEP on the bus this morning on a phone, and while lng, I
didn't find it too rambling. And this topic has been very often discussed
in very long and rambling mailing list threads, etc. So I think a long (If
not rambling) PEP is in order.

This is a very important topic for Python -- the py2-3 transition got a LOT
of flack, to the point of people claiming that it was easier to learn a
whole new language than convert to py3 -- and THIS particular issue was a
big part of it:

The truth is that any system that does not use a clearly defined encoding
for filenames (and everything else) is broken, plain and simple. But the
other truth is (as talked about in the PEP) they some *nix systems are that
broken because C code that simply passed around char* still works fine. And
no matter how you slice it telling people that they need to fix their
broken system in order for your software to run is not a popular option.

When Python added surrogateescape to its Unicode implementation, the tools
were there to work with broken (OK, I'll be charitable: misconfigured)
systems. Now we just need some easier defaults.

OK, now I'm getting long and rambling....

TL;DR -- The proposal in the PEP is an important step forward, and the
issue is fraught with enough history and controversy that a long PEP is
probably a good idea.

So the addition of a better summary of the specification up at the top, and
editing of the rest, and we could have a good PEP.

Too late for this release, but what can you do?


> The "Unicode just works" summary is more a wish than a proper summary of
> the PEP.
>

well, yeah.


> FWIW the relationship with PEP 538 is also pretty unclear. (Or maybe
> that's another case of the forest and the trees.) And that PEP (while
> already accepted) also comes across as rambling and vague, and I have no
> idea what it actually does. And it seems to mention PEP 540 quite a few
> times.
>

I just took another look at 538 -- and yes, the relationship between the
two is really unclear. In particular, with 538, why do we need 540? I
honestly don't know.

-Chris

-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

Chris.Barker at noaa.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20171205/43589a24/attachment.html>