On 11/3/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > We could use a better term than > > buffer-API-supporting object though! > > Especially if you're also going to be using the term > 'buffer' for a particular Python type. That seems like > a recipe for confusion to me.
I'd love a better term. It seems we could use several new names: 1. a new name for what PEP 3137 calls buffer 2. a new name for the union of bytes and buffer (*) 3. a new name for all types supporting the "buffer API" (*) We really do need to distinguish between #2 and #3, since buffer and bytes have many methods in common that the other members of category #3 don't have. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
