On 10/10/07, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Georg Brandl wrote: > > I agree that this is quite confusing. The PyBytes functions can be changed > > without a thought since they aren't 2.x heritage. Since PyBuffer_* is > > already > > taken, what about a PyByteBuffer_ prefix? PyString_ could then be renamed > > to PyByteString_. PyUnicode might be allowed to stay... > > I like your idea! > > IMHO PyUnicode_ can stay. It reflects the intention and aim of the type > and it's easy to remember. str() contains unicode data and it's C name > is PyUnicode. That works for me. *g* > > For the other two names I find PyBytes_ for bytes() and PyBytesBuffer_ > for buffer() easier to remember and more consistent.
+1 from me. No need to have PyBytes_ be PyBytesString_ as the string tie-in will become historical. Plus PyBytes_ is shorter without losing any detail of what the functions work with. -Brett _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
