On 11/3/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/3/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
Fails the rule that built-in types have all-lowercase names. I've been thinking to call it bytesbuffer or bytes_buffer though. > > 2. a new name for the union of bytes and buffer (*) > > ByteSequence That could work, it's an ABC after all (to be imported from collections). > > 3. a new name for all types supporting the "buffer API" > > buffer Another ABC, so should have a CamelCase name. Also, we probably shouldn't use plain, unadorned "buffer" or "Buffer" for any of these -- it has too many meanings. Also "buffer" is a popular variable name (much more so than bytes). -- --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
