Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > Hello, > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:25:07 -0700 > Christopher Barker python...@gmail.com wrote: > > As others have pointed out, the OP started in a bit > > of an oblique > > way, but it maybe come down to this: > > There are some use-cases for a mutable string type. > > For avoidance of doubt: nothing in my RFC has anything to do, or > implies, "a mutable string type". A well-know pattern of string > builder, yes. Piggybacking on existing StringIO/BytesIO classes, yes. > Anything else, no. > To not leave it cut and dry: IMHO, we need more const'ness in Python, > not less. I my dreams I already do stuff like: > from __future__ import const > class Foo: > pass > # This is an alias for "Foo" > Bar: const = Foo > # This is a variable which can store a reference to Foo or any other class > Baz = Foo > [This is not a new RFC! Please start a new thread if you'd like to pick > it up ;-)]
If I understand you are proposing a change from StringIO `write` method to `+=` operator. Is it right? I cannot see any advantage on this proposal since there is no real change in the implementation of StringIO. Or are you proposing any change in the underlying implementation and I have missed that point? In this case, I disagree with you: StringIO is a stream and I think that it is wrong to make it to "look & feel" like a string. That is my opinion. Sorry if I misunderstand you. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PHGIESG7VEBZZQGI2IZW7DHWH4MJWLOF/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
