On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:37:23 +0100, Robin Becker wrote: > In python 3 byte strings > are second class which I think is wrong
It certainly is wrong. bytes are just as much a first-class built-in type as list, int, float, bool, set, tuple and str. There may be missing functionality (relatively easy to add new functionality), and even poor design choices (like the foolish decision to have bytes display as if they were ASCII-ish strings, a silly mistake that simply reinforces the myth that bytes and ASCII are synonymous). Python 3.4 and 3.5 are in the process of rectifying as many of these mistakes as possible, e.g. adding back % formatting. But a few mistakes in the design of bytes' API no more makes it "second-class" than the lack of dict.contains_value() method makes dict "second-class". By all means ask for better bytes functionality. But don't libel Python by pretending that bytes is anything less than one of the most important and fundamental types in the language. bytes are so important that there are TWO implementations for them, a mutable and immutable version (bytearray and bytes), while text strings only have an immutable version. -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
