On 10/15/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/15/07, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...I would think that being able to edit in place would be a reason > > to use a buffer rather than (immutable) bytes. > I agree, thats a benefit of a mutable object. But I think the point about > not reusing the names with a different behavior is valid so that some > code can be written to operate on objects with duck type without > having to know if its mutable or not. I thought that was the reason to return self instead of None. If returning the original (but mutated) buffer is a problem, then there is already a problem, because someone else could already mutate the original. (Also note that for duck-typing, it should be OK if the new result object is always immutable, since you have to handle that case anyhow.) -jJ _______________________________________________ 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
