No takers? What about those repeated +42 voters? Does anyone want immutable bytes enough to do a teensy bit of work?
--Guido On 9/17/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This may have passed in a thread where no-one was listening, so I'm > repeating it here. > > I'm considering the following option: bytes would always be immutable, > and for the few places (mostly in io.py) where a mutable bytes buffer > would be handy, we use the array module. Then it would also make sense > to make b[0] return a bytes array of length 1 instead of a small int > -- bytes would be more similar to str in 2.x, albeit completely > incompatible with str in terms of mixed operations. > > It would help if someone explored creating a patch to implement this, > just to see the minimum amount of code that would need to change > compared to 3.0a1. (The challenge includes making all the tests pass > again.) > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > -- --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/archive%40mail-archive.com
