Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> This was in the context that it is decided by the community that a st8
>> type is needed and it does not go away.
>
> I think *that* context has not occurred. People wanted a read-only
> bytes type, not a byte-oriented character string type.
>
>> The alternative is for
> This was in the context that it is decided by the community that a st8
> type is needed and it does not go away.
I think *that* context has not occurred. People wanted a read-only
bytes type, not a byte-oriented character string type.
> The alternative is for str8 to be replaced by byte objects
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Then bytes can be bytes, and unicode can be unicode, and str8 can be
encoded strings for interfacing with the outside non-unicode world. Or
something like that.
>>> Hm... Requiring each str8 instance to have an encoding might be a
>>> problem -- it means yo
