There are two ways to open a text file in Python:
f = open(filename)
And
import codecs
f = codecs.open(filename, encoding="utf-8")
When is codecs.open preferable to open?
Since Python 2.6, a good practice is to use io.open(), which also takes an encoding argument, like the now obsolete codecs.open(). In Python 3, io.open is an alias for the open() built-in. So io.open() works in Python 2.6 and all later versions, including Python 3.4. See docs: http://docs.python.org/3.4/library/io.html
Now, for the original question: when reading text (including "plain text", HTML, XML and JSON) in Python 2 you should always use io.open() with an explicit encoding, or open() with an explicit encoding in Python 3. Doing so means you get correctly decoded Unicode, or get an error right off the bat, making it much easier to debug.
Pure ASCII "plain text" is a myth from the distant past. Proper English text uses curly quotes, em-dashes, bullets, € (euro signs) and even diaeresis (¨). Don't be naïve! (And let's not forget the Façade design pattern!)
Because pure ASCII is not a real option, open() without an explicit encoding is only useful to read binary files.
io.open() for text, and open() only for binary. The implication is that codecs.open() is not preferred at all.open and codecs.open, and specifically when the latter is preferable to the former. An answer that doesn't so much as mention codecs.open can't answer that question.codecs.open() was correct to use) then there is no "correct" answer about when to use it. The answer is to use io.open() instead. It's like if I ask "when should I use a wrench to drive a nail into a wall?". The right answer is "use a hammer".codecs.open is for if open seems to do the same thing! What is it?" -- many thanks for explaining both!Personally, I always use codecs.open unless there's a clear identified need to use open**. The reason is that there's been so many times when I've been bitten by having utf-8 input sneak into my programs. "Oh, I just know it'll always be ascii" tends to be an assumption that gets broken often.
Assuming 'utf-8' as the default encoding tends to be a safer default choice in my experience, since ASCII can be treated as UTF-8, but the converse is not true. And in those cases when I truly do know that the input is ASCII, then I still do codecs.open as I'm a firm believer in "explicit is better than implicit".
** - in Python 2.x, as the comment on the question states in Python 3 open replaces codecs.open
open sometimes can handle very well the UTF-8 encoded non-latin characters of the unicode set, and sometimes it fails miserabily ...io.open does not take an encoding param from what I can see in python 2.7.5io.open accepts encoding and newline parameters and interprets them as Python 3 does. Unlike codecs.open, a file opened with io.open will raise TypeError: write() argument 1 must be unicode, not str even in Python 2.7 if you attempt to write str (bytes) to it. A file opened with codecs.open will instead attempt implicit conversion to unicode, often leading to confusing UnicodeDecodeErrors.In Python 2 there are unicode strings and bytestrings. If you just use bytestrings, you can read/write to a file opened with open() just fine. After all, the strings are just bytes.
The problem comes when, say, you have a unicode string and you do the following:
>>> example = u'Μου αρέσει Ελληνικά'
>>> open('sample.txt', 'w').write(example)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode characters in position 0-2: ordinal not in range(128)
So here obviously you either explicitly encode your unicode string in utf-8 or you use codecs.open to do it for you transparently.
If you're only ever using bytestrings then no problems:
>>> example = 'Μου αρέσει Ελληνικά'
>>> open('sample.txt', 'w').write(example)
>>>
It gets more involved than this because when you concatenate a unicode and bytestring string with the + operator you get a unicode string. Easy to get bitten by that one.
Also codecs.open doesn't like bytestrings with non-ASCII chars being passed in:
codecs.open('test', 'w', encoding='utf-8').write('Μου αρέσει')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/codecs.py", line 691, in write
return self.writer.write(data)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/codecs.py", line 351, in write
data, consumed = self.encode(object, self.errors)
UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xce in position 0: ordinal not in range(128)
The advice about strings for input/ouput is normally "convert to unicode as early as possible and back to bytestrings as late as possible". Using codecs.open allows you to do the latter very easily.
Just be careful that you are giving it unicode strings and not bytestrings that may have non-ASCII characters.
u'' in the first example. This means I created a unicode string, not a bytestring. This is the difference between the two examples. In the second example I am creating a bytestring and writing out one of those to a file is just fine. A unicode string is not fine if you're using characters outside of ASCII.codecs.open, i suppose, is just a remnant 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, codecs.open was supposed to be used.
In Python 2.6, the io module came to the aid to make things a bit simpler.
According to the official documentation
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.
Having said that, the only use i can think of codecs.open in the current scenario is for the backward compatibility. In all other scenarios (unless you are using Python < 2.6) it is preferable to use io.open. Also in Python 3.x io.open is the same as built-in open
Note:
There is a syntactical difference between codecs.open and io.open as well.
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)
codecs.open and io.open differ in terms of syntax, they return objects of different type. Also codecs.open always works with files in binary mode.When you need to open a file that has a certain encoding, you would use the codecs module.
When you want to load a binary file, use
f = io.open(filename, 'b').
For opening a text file, always use f = io.open(filename, encoding='utf-8') with explicit encoding.
In python 3 however open does the same thing as io.open and can be used instead.
Note:
codecs.openis planned to become deprecated and replaced byio.openafter its introduction in python 2.6. I would only use it if code needs to be compatible with earlier python versions. For more information on codecs and unicode in python see the Unicode HOWTO.
io.open or codecs.open? 2. codecs.open is not deprecated yet, read the discussion on the page you linked to.
codecs.open()is obsolete in 3.x, sinceopen()gains anencodingargument.codecs.open()is obsolete? I don't think this in python3 docs: docs.python.org/3.7/library/codecs.htmlimport io; io.open(...)?