-1 on having "".join() call str at all. yuck. shouldn't the caller just write:
"".join((str(x) for x in thing)) when they desire guaranteed stringification instead of a TypeError? Anyways others disagree and this was already implemented so I assume my -1 is rejected, I at least agree on this: +1 get rid of the inconsistent TypeError if a bytes or buffer object is in the list. thats inconsistent. inserting the b'' or buffer(b'') syntax is the consistent thing to do in that situation. -gps On 11/1/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Currently (in 3.0), "".join(<seq>) automatically applies str() to the > items of <seq>, *except* if the item is a bytes instance -- then it > raises a TypeError. Is that proper behavior? The alternative is to > uniformly apply str(), which for bytes returns a string of the form > "b'...'" or "buffer(b'...')" (depending on whether the bytes are > immutable or not). Given that we killed the exception for "" == b"" > earlier, I'm tempted to remove the exception. Any opinions to the > contrary? > > -- > --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/greg%40krypto.org >
_______________________________________________ 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
