Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #87022

Re: io.open vs. codecs.open

Show key headers only | View raw

----- Original Message -----

> From: Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
> To: python-list@python.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: io.open vs. codecs.open
> 
> Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
> 
>>  Hi,
>> 
>>  Is there a (use case) difference between codecs.open and io.open? What is
>>  the difference? A small difference that I just discovered is that
>>  codecs.open(somefile).read() returns a bytestring if no encoding is
>>  specified*), but a unicode string if an encoding is specified. io.open
>>  always returns a unicode string.
> 
> What version of Python are you using?


Python 2.7 and 3.4.


> In Python 3, io.open is used as the built-in open. I believe this is
> guaranteed, and not just an implementation detail.
> 
> The signatures and capabilities are quite different:
> 
> codecs.open:
> 
> open(filename, mode='rb', encoding=None, errors='strict', 
> buffering=1)
> 
> io.open:
> 
> open(file, mode='r', buffering=-1, encoding=None,

>          errors=None, newline=None, closefd=True, opener=None)

Thanks. I didn't realize that closefd was also available in Python 2. I had only seen it in Python 3 open()

> 
> io.open does *not* always produce Unicode strings. If you pass 'rb' as 
> the
> mode, the file is opened in binary mode, not text mode, and the read()
> method will return bytes.



So, in recent versions of Python 2 (Python 2.7.x, 2.6) I can basically ditch codecs.open() and the standard open()?
Given that standard open() has no encoding parameter, it is only really safe for use with binary data (binary mode).


> As usual, help() in the interactive interpreter is your friend.
> help(codecs.open) and help(io.open) will explain the many differences
> between them, including that codecs.open always opens the file in binary
> mode.
> 
> As for use-cases, I think that codecs.open is mostly a left-over from the
> Python 2 days when the built-in open had a much simpler interface and fewer
> capabilities. In Python 2, built-in open doesn't take an encoding argument,
> so if you want to use something other than binary mode or the default
> encoding, you were supposed to use codecs.open.
> 
> In Python 2.6, the io module was added to Python 2 to aid in porting to
> Python 3. The docs say:
> 
>     New in version 2.6.
> 
>     The io module provides the Python interfaces to stream handling.
>     Under Python 2.x, this is proposed as an alternative to the
>     built-in file object, but in Python 3.x it is the default
>     interface to access files and streams.
> 
> https://docs.python.org/2/library/io.html
> 
> 
> To summarise:
> 
> * In Python 2, if you want to supply an encoding to open, use codecs.open
> (before 2.6) or io.open (2.6 and later);
> 
> * If you want the enhanced capabilities of Python 3 open, use io.open;
> 
> * In Python 3, io.open is the same thing as built-in open;
> 
> * And codecs.open is (I think) mostly there for backwards compatibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steven
> 
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> 

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

io.open vs. codecs.open Albert-Jan Roskam <fomcl@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 04:12 -0800
  Re: io.open vs. codecs.open Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-05 06:56 +1100
    Re: io.open vs. codecs.open Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-04 20:15 +0000
    Re: io.open vs. codecs.open Albert-Jan Roskam <fomcl@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 13:48 +0000

csiph-web