+1 from me, i don't see a reason for bytes(s, e) to exist when s.encode(e) does the same job and is more symmetric.
On 8/27/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still working on stricter enforcement of the "don't mix str and > bytes" rule. I'm finding a lot of trivial problems, which are > relatively easy to fix but time-consuming. > > While doing this, I realize there are two idioms for converting a str > to bytes: s.encode(e) or bytes(s, e). These have identical results. I > think we can't really drop s.encode(), for symmetry with b.decode(). > So is bytes(s, e) redundant? > > To make things murkier, str(b, e) is not quite redundant compared to > b.encode(e), since str(b, e) also accepts buffer objects. But this > doesn't apply to bytes(s, e) -- that one *only* accepts str. (NB: > bytes(x) is a different API and accepts a different set of types.) > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > _______________________________________________ > 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/greg%40krypto.org > _______________________________________________ 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
