"Christian Heimes" <lis....s.de> wrote: > John Nagle wrote > > If "bytes", a new keyword, works differently in 2.6 and 3.0, that was > > really > > dumb. There's no old code using "bytes". So converting code to 2.6 means > > it has to be converted AGAIN for 3.0. That's a good reason to ignore > > 2.6 as > > defective. > > Please don't call something dumb that you don't fully understand. It's > offenses the people who have spent lots of time developing Python -- > personal, unpaid and voluntary time!
Crying out; "Please do not criticise me, I am doing it for free!" does not justify delivering sub standard work - that is the nature of the open source process - if you lift your head and say or do something, there are bound to be some objections - some thoughtful and valid, and others merely carping. Being sensitive about it serves no purpose. > I can assure, the bytes alias and b'' alias have their right to exist. This is not a helpful response - on the surface JN has a point - If you have to go through two conversions, then 2.6 does not achieve what it appears to set out to do. So the issue is simple: - do you have to convert twice? - If yes - why? - as he says - there exists no prior code, so there seems to be no reason not to make it identical to 3.0 The response answers neither of these valid concerns. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
