On 11/3/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/3/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > We could use a better term than > > > buffer-API-supporting object though!
> > Especially if you're also going to be using the term > > 'buffer' for a particular Python type. That seems like > > a recipe for confusion to me. So don't do that. > I'd love a better term. It seems we could use several new names: > 1. a new name for what PEP 3137 calls buffer ByteBuffer > 2. a new name for the union of bytes and buffer (*) ByteSequence > 3. a new name for all types supporting the "buffer API" buffer -jJ _______________________________________________ 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
