Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > * However, it is *very* obscure. I've been using Python for a year and I > didn't know about it.
Hmm. There are probably many modules that you haven't used yet. > * And, it requires importing binascii. So what? The desire to convert bytes into hex strings is infrequent enough to leave it out of the realm of a method. Also, Guido has pronounced that he prefers functions over methods (and in this case, I agree) Using functions is more extensible. If you wanted to produce base-85 (say), then you can extend the functionality of bytes by providing a function that does that, whereas you can't extend the existing bytes type. > * And, it results in a bytes object, not a str. That's weird. (Perhaps > it would be good idea to change the functions in the binascii module to > output strings instead of bytes? Ostensibly it looks like this module > hasn't undergone py3kification). There has been endless debates on this (or, something similar to this), revolving around the question: "is base-64 text or binary"? > Would it hurt to have the tohex method of the bytes object to perform > this task as well? IMO, yes, it would. It complicates the code, and draws the focus away from the proper approach to data conversion (namely, functions - not methods). > It would be much nicer to use since it's a method of > the object rather than having to find out about and import and use some > function. That's highly debatable. > Also why have a bytes.fromhex method when you could use binascii.unhexlify? Good point. In any case, this is my opion; feel free to discuss this on python-dev. Very clearly it is too late to add this for 3.0 now. _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3532> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
