On 7/29/21 3:46 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> We’re generally very favorable for adding to Python 3.11 the features and
APIs described
> in the PEP. We have some requests for changes that we’d like you to consider.
>
> * The Python-Version in the PEP needs to target Python 3.11 of course.
Done.
> * We think it would be better if bytes.fromsize()’s second argument was a keyword-enabled or keyword-only argument.
We understand the rationale given in the PEP for not doing so, but ultimately we think the readability of (at least
allowing) a keyword argument to be more compelling. Some possible options include `fill`, `value`, or `byte`.
Done, went with "fill" as an optional keyword argument.
> * We all really dislike the word “ord” as in `bytes.fromord()`. We understand the symmetry of this choice, but we
also feel like we have an opportunity to make it more understandable, so we recommend `bytes.fromint()` and
`bytearray.fromint()`.
Done.
> * We think the `bchr()` built-in is not necessary. Given the `.fromint()` methods, it’s better not to duplicate the
functionality, and everything has a cost. A built-in that exists only for the symmetry described in the PEP is just a
little extra complexity for little value.
I would rather keep `bchr` and lose the `.fromint()` methods.
To get bytes:
some_var = bchr(65)
vs
some_var = bytes.fromint(65)
and for bytearrays
some_var = bytearray(bchr(65))
vs
some_var = bytearray.from_int(65)
Let me know if I should drop `.fromint()`.
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/FUGXFVXV3SXPOX66KMAWKAJXIERB3JF4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
