>> That's not a literal, it's a display. The difference is that
>> a literal denotes the same object every time it is executed.
>> A display creates a new object every time it is executed.
>> (another difference is that a display is a constructed thing
>> which may contain runtime-computed components, unlike a
>> literal).
>>
>> So if bytes are mutable and also have source-level
>> representation, they should be displays, not literals.
>
> So is having mutable bytes just a matter of calling them "byte
> displays" instead of "byte literals" or does that also require
> changing something in the back end?
It's certainly also an issue of language semantics (i.e. changes
to interpreter code). There are a number of options:
1. don't support creation of byte values through syntax. Instead,
create bytes through a constructor function.
2. if there is syntax support, make it a display: every time
you execute a bytes display, create a new value, which
can then be mutated.
3. if you want it to be a literal, make it immutable: change the
type, or add a flag so that it is immutable. Then put it into
the co_consts array of the code object.
The original complaint was that it shouldn't be in co_consts
if it is mutable.
In case these three options aren't clear yet, some examples:
1. def foo():
return bytes([1,2,3])
print foo() is foo() # False
x = foo()
x[0] = 5 # supported
2. def foo():
return b"\x01\x02\x03"
print foo() is foo() # False
x = foo()
x[0] = 5 # supported
3. def foo():
return b"\x01\x02\x03"
print foo() is foo() # True
x = foo()
x[0] = 5 # TypeError
HTH,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
