On 5/5/07, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-05-04 19:51, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > [-python-dev] > > > > On 5/4/07, Fred L. Drake, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Friday 04 May 2007, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> > I also suggest making all bytes literals immutable to avoid running > >> > into any issues like the above. > >> > >> +1 from me. > > > > Rather than adding immutability to bytes objects (which has big > > implementation and type checking implications), consider using > > buffer(b"123") as an immutable bytes literal. You can freely > > concatenate and compare buffer objects with bytes objects. > > I like Georg's idea of having an immutable bytes subclass. > b"abc" could then be a shortcut constructor for this subclass. > > In general, I don't think it's a good idea to have literals > turn into mutable objects, since literals are normally perceived > as being constant.
Does that mean you want list literals to be immutable too? lst = ['a', 'b', 'c'] lst.append('d') # raises an error? STeVe -- I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy _______________________________________________ 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