On 2/16/06, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While we're at it, any chance of renaming str/unicode to text in 3.0? > It's a MUCH better name, as evidenced by the opentext/openbytes names. > str is just some odd C-ism. > > Obviously it's a form of gratuitous breakage, but I think the long > term benefits are enough that we need to be *sure* that the breakage > would be too much before we discount it. This seems the right time to > discuss that.
I'm +/-0 on this. ABC used text. In almost every other currently popular language it's called string. But the advantage of text is that it's not an abbreviation, and it reinforces the notion that it's not binary data. "Binary string" is a common colloquialism; "binary text" is an oxymoron. Mechanical conversion of code using 'str' (or 'unicode') to use 'text' seems simply enough. OTOH, even if we didn't rename str/unicode to text, opentext would still be a good name for the function that opens a text file. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
