People also argue that with such an approach, we could as well tell users to use array.array for the mutable type. But then, people complain that it doesn't have all the library support that strings have.
Indeed - I've got a data manipulating program that I figured I could make slightly less memory hungry by using arrays instead of strings.
I discovered very quickly just how inconvenient such a change would be in terms of the available API for manipulation of the byte array (the loss of 'join' support was a serious drawback). The program still uses strings for that reason.
However, I wonder if that might not be better solved by providing an "array.bytearray" that supported relevant portions of the string API (and easy conversion to a string), rather than blurring the concept of immutable strings.
Hmm - something else the PEP needs to discuss: What happens to __str__ and __unicode__? Is there a new __bytes__ slot?
I wonder if Skip is still up for championing this one. . .
Cheers, Nick. One PEP's enough for me (even though 338 doesn't seem to generate much interest)
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
