"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > > As I work on these.. Should the mutable PyBytes_ (buffer) objects implement | > > > the following methods inplace and return an additional reference to self? | > | > > > .capitalize(), .center(), .expandtabs(), .rjust(), .swapcase(), .title(), | > > > .upper(), .zfill() | > | > > No... That would be a huge trap to fall in at all sorts of occasions.
At this point, I though your objection was to returning the buffer instead of None, as with list mutations, and for the same reason. But admittedly, some people do not like this feature of lists. | > So would returning a different object. I expect a mutation operation | > on an explicitly mutable object to mutate the object, instead of | > creating something new. So was I. | Since these methods with these very names already exist for strings | and return new values there, I don't see the gotcha unless you never | use strings. The real question is what is more useful? I would think that being able to edit in place would be a reason to use a buffer rather than (immutable) bytes. tjr _______________________________________________ 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
