Dmitry Vasiliev <d...@hlabs.spb.ru> added the comment: Phillip J. Eby wrote: > Graham: thanks for pointing that out; I completely forgot we already > *had* the migration discussion on the Web-SIG! It just slipped my > mind because I didn't have any 3.0 work on the horizon.
Good to see we came to conclusion. Actually my first patch went in the right direction. :-) > Dmitry: A question about the new patch. Are bytearray and memoryview > objects in 3.0 really the same as bytestrings? It seems to me that > allowing mutable bytes objects is a mistake from a bug-finding > standpoint, even if it could be a win from a performance > standpoint. I think it might be better to be more restrictive to > start out, and then let people lobby for supporting other types, > rather than the other way around, where we'll never get to narrow the > list. Apart from that, the patch looks pretty good. Thank you! Actually I thought about functionality, not performance but I think you're right and mutable bytes objects also can open doors for unexpected side effects. I'll update the patch today. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4718> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
