On 8/6/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/6/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For how long? Do you expect to receive further information that will > > make a decision simpler? > > I'm waiting for a show-stopper issue that can't be solved without > having an immutable bytes type.
Apologies if this has been answered before, but why are you waiting for a show-stopper that requires an immutable bytes type rather than one that requires a mutable one? This being software, there isn't likely to be a real show-stopper (especially if you're willing to copy the whole object), just things that are unnecessarily annoying or confusing. Hashing seems to be one of those. Taking TOOWTDI as a guideline: If you have immutable bytes and need a mutable object, just use list(). If you have mutable bytes and need an immutable object, you could 1) convert it to an int (probably big-endian), 2) convert it to a latin-1 unicode object (containing garbage, of course), 3) figure out an encoding in which to assume the bytes represent text and create a unicode string from that, or 4) use the deprecated str8 type. Why isn't this a clear win for immutable bytes? Jeffrey _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
