I am not going to explain this further if you still don't get it. These functions should not modify their argument, and return a copy of the same type as the original.
I'm fine with new APIs that perform similar things in-place. --Guido On 10/15/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/15/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/15/07, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ...I would think that being able to edit in place would be a reason > > > to use a buffer rather than (immutable) bytes. > > > I agree, thats a benefit of a mutable object. But I think the point about > > not reusing the names with a different behavior is valid so that some > > code can be written to operate on objects with duck type without > > having to know if its mutable or not. > > I thought that was the reason to return self instead of None. > > If returning the original (but mutated) buffer is a problem, then > there is already a problem, because someone else could already mutate > the original. > > (Also note that for duck-typing, it should be OK if the new result > object is always immutable, since you have to handle that case > anyhow.) > > -jJ > _______________________________________________ > Python-3000 mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
