Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Jim Jewett wrote: > > > Why is it essential that string views be a different type, rather than > > an internal implementation detail, like long vs int? Today's strings > > can already return a new object or an existing one which happens to be > > equal. > > > > Is this just a matter of efficiency, or are you making a fundamental > > distinction? > > This is a good question. I haven't been following this thread in > detail, but ISTM that users shouldn't care and that the object itself > should do whatever makes the most sense for the most general > audience. I'm eager to never have to worry about 8-bit strings vs. > unicode strings, how they mix and match, and all the nasty corners > when they interact. I'd hate to trade that for the worry about > whether I have a string or a string-view.
If views are not automatically returned for methods on strings, then you won't have to worry about views unless you explicitly construct them. Also, you won't ever have a string-view in py3k, it will be a bytes-view, and if you want to do something like bts.[find|index|partition](sub), you are going to need the bytes-view, as bytes don't offer those methods natively. - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
