On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This does make it look rather as though bytes == str was a decision > whose consequences weren't fully appreciated before implementation. >
Well, you could say that about almost any change. > Was this horror anticipated? I didn't anticipate it. > > regards > Steve > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: In Python 2.6, bytes is str > Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:30:17 -0700 > From: Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: at&t http://my.att.net/ > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Newsgroups: gmane.comp.python.general > > > Python 3 has the 'bytes' type, which the string type I've long wanted in > various languages. Among other advantages, it is immutable, and > therefore bytes objects can be dict keys. There's a mutable version too, > called "bytearray". > > In Python 2.6, the name 'bytes' is defined, and bound to str. The 2.6 > assignment presents some pitfalls. Be aware. > > Consider constructing a bytes object as: > > b = bytes([68, 255, 0]) > > In Python 3.x, len(b) will be 3, which feels right. > > In Python 2.6, len(b) will be 12, because b is the str, '[68, 255, 0]'. > > > I'm thinking I should just avoid using 'bytes' in Python 2.6. If there's > another Python release between 2.6 and 3.gold, I'd advocate removing > the pre-defined 'bytes', or maybe defining it as something else. I think it needs to be made clear that bytes is there for type compatibility (e.g., ``isinstance(ob, bytes)``). And the bytes literals work how you would expect. What I would like to know if there are any other gotchas beyond the constructor as all of the other uses act as you would expect. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
