Re: Re: inconvenient unicode conversion of non-string arguments

2006-12-13 Thread Holger Joukl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 13.12.2006 12:05:33: > Holger Joukl wrote: > > >>> Ok, but I still don't see why these arguments shouldn't simply be > >>> silently ignored > >> > >> >>> import this > > > > You probably refer to "Explicit is better than implicit.". > > "Errors should never pass sile

Re: Re: inconvenient unicode conversion of non-string arguments

2006-12-13 Thread Holger Joukl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 13.12.2006 11:37:03: > Holger Joukl wrote: > > > Ok, but I still don't see why these arguments shouldn't simply be silently > > ignored > > >>> import this > > > You probably refer to "Explicit is better than implicit.". In that particular case I still think it woul

Re: Re: inconvenient unicode conversion of non-string arguments

2006-12-13 Thread Holger Joukl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 13.12.2006 11:02:30: > > Holger Joukl wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I consider the behaviour of unicode() inconvenient wrt to conversion of > > non-string > > arguments. > > While you can do: > > > > >>> unicode(17.3) > > u'17.3' > > > > you cannot do: > > > > >>> unico