Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Well now you have to prefix b"" instead for bytestrings. The argument works both ways -- there's no magical improvement that happened in Python 3 (except that nice storage optimization in 3.3 that I mentioned above).

It's actually good practice to be explicit about the type, and write b"" and u"" always (easier on the person reading the code). The u'' literal prefix was re-introduced in 3.3 for this reason.

The argument works both ways

It doesn't because strings and text are a lot more common than bytes. Yours is a really weird line of argument - that the 3.x changes and what's in 2.7 are fundamentally equivalent and thus the changes are outright unnecessary and that the people who made them just got it wrong and did it for no apparent reason or benefit. I get that someone might not like what they did or how they did it but your take should give you pause just by its general improbability.

You're mixing up two things: separating string types in the language, and using prefix literals. Completely orthogonal concerns.

As I said, u'' literals were re-introduced by the Python developers themselves, in Python 3.3.

I don't think I am. In this thread you're repeatedly making the point that 2.7 supported Unicode and the difference is mostly technical details of things like internal representation and/or a matter of prefixes or whatnot. This just isn't true. The fundamental change is - in Python 2, strings are bags of bytes and in Python 3 strings are collections of Unicode codepoints and you need to go through an encoding to convert to and from bytes. This is a big (and necessary) deal. No amount of debating the finer points of implementation, feature retention or reintroduction, etc is going to make that difference not matter.

What I said:

1. BOTH Python 2 and Python 3 come with built-in support for BOTH bytestring and unicode (contrary to OP's claims I responded to)

2. That mixing bytestrings and unicode will fail with an explicit error since 3.0+ (a good idea IMO)

3. Unicode has a more efficient internal storage since Python 3.3+ (a neat technical detail)

4. It's good practice to be explicit about the type of literals, and write b"" and u"" always

5. That Python 2.7 doesn't support unicode is simply FUD.

Can you articulate which point you're actually contesting? I'll be happy to clarify, but I'm honestly unsure what you're responding to.

I think almost all of these are wrong.

The person you replied to didn't claim Python 2 doesn't support unicode. 'Bytestrings' has what is wrong with Python 2 neatly summarized in a single word (and this, incidentally, is a term the Python documentation avoids these days because it's bad). 3 is true but not really related to the topic at hand. 4 is, I think, outright wrong. As to 5, I'm not sure why you would even want to defend that. It's not what the poster said and even if they had said it, they'd be just wrong - it's not 'FUD'. That is just you being grumpy and rude.

u"" was reintroduced to avoid people of fixing all their strings (see PEP 414 rationale).

that was my point, by moving to python 3, I removed all my "u", the thing other developers not wanted (see PEP-414 again); I loved the "purity".

but removing u was tedious (at best).

In my use case, strings are "string" and binary are "bytes". Which I think is much safer.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact