On 8/28/20 7:50 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: >>> No interpreation requires, since parsing failed. Then you can start >>> dealing with these exceptions. _Do not_ write unparsable messages into >>> an mbox! >>> >> Maybe I shouldn't but Python 2 has been managing to do so for several >> years without any issues. > I am inclined to congratulate you on that sheer amount of luck. I don't > believe there were no issues because everything worked just right under > py2 but rather because py2 cared less than py3 does now. > >> Are we saying that Python 3 really can't be made to handle things >> 'tolerantly' like Python 2 used to? > It sure should be possible but it will require *explicit* en/decode()s in > more places than before because AFAICT there's less impliciteness as to > which encoding to apply (regardless of whether it applies). > > Karsten > > > This might be one of the cases where Python 2's lack handling of string vs bytes was an advantage.
If he was just scanning the message for specific ASCII strings, then not getting the full message decoded write is unlikely to have been causing problems. Python2 handled that sort of case quite easily. Python 3 on the other hand, will have issue converting the byte message to a string, since there isn't a single encoding that you could use for all of it all the time. This being 'fussier' does make sure that the program is handling all the text 'properly', and would be helpful if some of the patterns being checked for contained 'extended' (non-ASCII) characters. One possible solution in Python3 is to decode the byte string using an encoding that allows all 256 byte values, so it won't raise any encoding errors, just give your possibly non-sense characters for non-ASCII text. -- Richard Damon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
