John Nagle wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: >> John Nagle wrote: >>> Benjamin Kaplan wrote: >>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John Nagle <na...@animats.com> wrote: >>>> > ...Re "bytes" not behaving as documented in 2.6: > >>> That's indeed how Python 2.6 works. But that's not how >>> PEP 3137 says it's supposed to work. >>> >>> Guido: >>> >>> "I propose the following type names at the Python level: >>> >>> * bytes is an immutable array of bytes (PyString) >>> * bytearray is a mutable array of bytes (PyBytes)" > ... >>> (Not true in Python 2.6 >>> Is this a bug, a feature, a documentation error, or bad design? >>> >> It's a feature. In fact all that was done to accommodate easier >> migration to 3.x is easily shown in one statement: >> >>>>> str is bytes >> True >> >> So that's why bytes works the way it does in 2.6 ... hence my contested >> description of it as an "ugly hack". I am happy to withdraw "ugly", but >> I think "hack" could still be held to apply. > > Agreed. But is this a 2.6 thing, making 2.6 incompatible with 3.0, or > what? How will 3.x do it? The PEP 3137 way, or the Python 2.6 way? > > The way it works in 2.6 makes it necessary to do "ord" conversions > where they shouldn't be required. > Yes, the hack was to achieve a modicum of compatibility with 3.0 without having to turn the world upside down.
I haven't used 3.0 enough the say whether bytearray has been correctly implemented. But I believe the intention is that 3.0 should fully implement PEP 3137. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
