ff13d58c14
from __future__ unicode_literals leads to developer confusion as developers no longer can tell whether a bare literal string is a byte string or a unicode string. Explicit marking as u"" or b"" is the way to solve the same problem in the Ansbile codebase.
16 lines
902 B
ReStructuredText
16 lines
902 B
ReStructuredText
Sanity Tests » no-unicode_literals
|
|
==================================
|
|
|
|
The use of :code:`from __future__ import unicode_literals` has been deemed an anti-pattern. The
|
|
problems with it are:
|
|
|
|
* It makes it so one can't jump into the middle of a file and know whether a bare literal string is
|
|
a byte string or text string. The programmer has to first check the top of the file to see if the
|
|
import is there.
|
|
* It removes the ability to define native strings (a string which should be a byte string on python2
|
|
and a text string on python3) via a string literal.
|
|
* It makes for more context switching. A programmer could be reading one file which has
|
|
`unicode_literals` and know that bare string literals are text strings but then switch to another
|
|
file (perhaps tracing program execution into a third party library) and have to switch their
|
|
understanding of what bare string literals are.
|
|
|