"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Better than returning unicode, but not as good as returning "binary".
>
> It never was the plan to have this return unicode BTW.
>
> What's the difference between "binary" and "bytes"? To me
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My apologies for rambling a bit - I can't currently give a succinct
>> explanation for why the current direction feels wrong, but I felt it was
>> worth supporting Raymond on this point.
>
> Apologies accepted -- but
On 2/21/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As penance for my doubts, I've committed fixes for various dict-related
> test failures in the py3k branch :)
Thanks!!! That was well beyond penance. :-)
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> P.S. I don't have bsddb in my devel tree, so I couldn't fix that, a
On 2/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the spelling of a bytes string with an ASCII character value is all
> you are complaining about, you should have said so right away.
That is my main objection.
A literal form does clear it up, though I'm not sure "b" is the right
prefix
Are bytes supposed to be mutable?
Josiah:
> even be changed to *take* a bytes object as the destination buffer
Guido:
> This already works -- bytes support the buffer API.
but later:
> I think you misunderstood the plans for bytes. The plan is for the
> performance with bytes to scream, in part
Sorry, that was an unfortunate typo. bytes are Mutable. (It's the same
as in Java, really.)
On 2/21/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are bytes supposed to be mutable?
>
> Josiah:
> > even be changed to *take* a bytes object as the destination buffer
>
> Guido:
> > This already works --
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the spelling of a bytes string with an ASCII character value is all
> > you are complaining about, you should have said so right away.
>
> That is my main objection.
>
> A literal form doe
Right. The b"..." literal doesn't have this problem because problems
always show up in the bytecode compilation stage; that's the beauty of
b"...". Patch anyone?
On 2/21/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/21/07, Guido van Rossum <
Jim Jewett wrote:
> A literal form does clear it up, though I'm not sure "b" is the right
> prefix. (I keep wanting to read "binary" or "boolean", rather than
> "ASCII")
It means "bytes". The ASCII part is that you've
written characters in quotes after it.
--
Greg
__
