The whole point of base64 encoding is to safely encode binary data into
text characters. Thus, the base64.b64decode() function should equally
accept text strings or binary strings as input. For example, there is a
reasonable expectation that something like this should work:

>>> x = 'SGVsbG8='
>>> base64.b64decode(x)
b'Hello'
>>>

In Python 3, you get this exception however:

>>> base64.b64decode(x)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "/tmp/lib/python3.0/base64.py", line 80, in b64decode
    raise TypeError("expected bytes, not %s" % s.__class__.__name__)
TypeError: expected bytes, not str
>>> 

I realize that there are encoding issues with Unicode strings, but
base64 encodes everything into the first 127 ASCII characters. If the
input to b64decode is a str, just do a encode('ascii') operation on it
and proceed. If that fails, it wasn't valid Base64 to begin with.

I can't think of any real negative impact to making this change as long
as the result is still always bytes. The main benefit is just
simplifying the decoding process for end-users.

See bpo-4768.

Note: This problem applies to all of the other decoders/encoders in the
base64 too (b16, b32, etc.)

One more followup. The quopri module (which is highly related to
base64 in that quopri and base64 are often used together within MIME)
does accept both unicode and byte strings when decoding. For example,
this works:

>>> quopri.decodestring('Hello World')
b'Hello World'
>>> quopri.decodestring(b'Hello World')
b'Hello World'
>>>

However, the quopri module, like base64, uses byte strings almost
everywhere else. For example, encoding a byte string with quopri still
produces bytes (just like base64)

>>> quopri.encodestring(b'Hello World')
b'Hello World'
>>>

About quoted printable, there are two implementations:

• binascii.a2b_qp() (Modules/binascii.c): C implementation, use
  PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwargs, "s*|i", ...) to parse the
  data
• quopri.decode() (Lib/quopri.py): Python implementation
  => quopri.decodestring() uses io.BytesIO() to parse the data

But quopri.decodestring() reuses binascii.a2b_qp() if the binascii
module is present. So quopri.decodestring behaviour depends of the
presence of binascii module...

• binascii present: accept bytes or unicode
• missing binascii: accept only bytes!

binascii.a2b_qp() encodes unicode string to UTF-8 bytes string.

If the input to b64decode is a str, just do a encode('ascii')
operation on it and proceed. If that fails, it wasn't valid
Base64 to begin with.

On unicode encode error, should we raise an UnicodeEncodeError or a
binascii.Error?

And there is also the problem of base64.b64decode()
alternate "characters". Should we accept non-ASCII alternate
characters?
base64.b64decode('01a\xfeb\xffcd', altchars=b'\xfe\xff')

For the example, the result depends on the choosen charset:

• ASCII (strict): encode input text raise an UnicodeDecodeError
• ISO-8859-1 (ignore): works as expected
• UTF-8 (strict): unexpected result

The only valid choice is ASCII because ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 will
reintroduce bytes/character mixture.

This appears to still be an issue in py3k. I've attached the command and output when running python3 -m base64 with various options and inputs. If there's consensus on a solution, I'd be happy to take a crack at making a patch.

Attached base64_main.patch fixes errors described in b64-decode-str-bytes-typeerror.txt.

@Haypo - what patch? :)

This one!

I commited base64_main.patch (+ tests): 3.2 (r81533) and 3.1 (r81534).

Accept unicode string is not "pure", but I agree that it's convinient. Here is a patch:

• base64.b(16|32|64)encode and b64.encodebytes accept unicode string
• unicode is first encoded to utf-8 to get a byte string
• Update the docstrings and the documentation
• Fix tests

I commited base64_main.patch (+ tests): 3.2 (r81533) and 3.1 (r81534).

Hum, the test fails on Windows: fixed by r81535 (3.2) and r81536 (3.1).

The patch appears to be fixing the wrong functions. It is decode that needs to accept unicode. Encode should still be restricted to bytes.

After thinking about it, I'm inclined to reject this and say that quopri should be fixed to reject string input to decode. On python-dev Guido opined that a kind of polymorphism in the stdlib was good (bytes in --> bytes out, string in --> string out). string in --> bytes out and bytes in --> string out was considered bad, to my understanding (except for unicode encode/decode, of course).

As you say, all one has to do is encode the string as ascii to get the bytes to pass in. It is better, I think, to maintain the clear distinction between bytes and strings in the programmers mind. That's what Python3 is all about, really.

As for "the whole point of base64 is to safely encode binary data into text characters", that is not true. The point is to encode binary data into a subset of *ascii*, which is *not* text, it is bytes. The fact that this is also useful for transferring binary data through unicode is pretty much an unintended consequence of the way unicode is designed.