In the end, the only layer at which it really matters whether your byte sequence can be decoded is the font renderer, and just being valid utf-8 isn't good enough for it either.
In the end, the only layer at which it really matters whether your byte sequence can be decoded is the font renderer, and just being valid utf-8 isn't good enough for it either.
Ok that explains how we ended up here. I'm considering some other common uses! A search-index for example greatly profits from being able to normalize representations and split words.
You can still best-effort split words! You can do a pretty good job splitting words without ensuring that the words decode in your preferred encoding.
I understand you're arguing about some sort of equivalency between byte-arrays and Unicode strings. Sure there are half-baked ways to do word-splitting on a byte-array. But why do you consider that a viable option? Under what circumstances would you do that?
def keywords(text):
return set(filter(None, re.split("\W+", unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", input_str).lower())))
How would this look if strings were byte-arrays? How would `normalize()`, `lower()`, and `split()` know what encoding to use?The way I see it: If the encoding is implicit, you have global state. If it's explicit, you have to pass the encoding. Both is extra state to worry about. When the passed value is a Unicode string, this question doesn't come up.
I realize this sounds like a total cop-out, but when the use-case is destructively best-effort tokenizing an input string using library functions, it doesn't really matter whether your internal encoding is utf-32 or utf-8. I mean, under the hood, normalize still has to map arbitrary-length sequences to arbitrary-length sequences even when working with utf-32 (see: unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", "a\u0301 ffi") == "\xe1 ffi").
So on the happy path, you don't see much of a difference.
The main observable difference is that if you take input without decoding it explicitly, then the always-decode approach has already crashed long before reaching this function, while the assume-the-encoding approach probably spouts gibberish at this point. And sure, there are plenty of plausible scenarios where you'd rather get the crash than subtly broken behaviour. But ... I don't see this reasonably being one of them, considering that you're apparently okay with discarding all \W+.