Ron Adam writes:
> While playing around with the example bytes class I noticed code reads
> much better when I use methods called tounicode and tostring.
[...]
> I'm not suggesting we start using to-type everywhere, just where it
> might make things clearer over decode and encode.
+1
I always find myself slightly confused by encode() and decode()
despite the fact that I understand (I think) the reason for the
choice of those names and by rights ought to have no trouble.
I'm not arguing that it's worth the gratuitous code breakage (I
don't have enough code using encode() and decode() for my opinion
to count in that matter.) But I will say that if there were no
legacy I'd prefer the tounicode() and tostring() (but shouldn't it
be 'tobytes()' instead?) names for Python 3.0.
-- Michael Chermside
*****************************************************************************
This email may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe
you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete
the message without copying or disclosing it.
*****************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
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
