Guido van Rossum wrote: >>Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >>>I'm a little surprised. Raymond Hettinger checked in a change that >>>makes all slices of buffer objects return strings. His comments on SF >>>bug 546434 say that only one person replied and that they agreed >>>returning strings was the better solution. But that's not how I read >>>the only response to his query that I see in python-dev, from Scott >>>Gilbert: >> >>Interesting. I must have skipped that message. > > > You blink, and you find that the world has changed. Indeed :-) >>IMHO, all slices of buffer object should return buffer objects, >>but since all Python releases return strings, I guess this is too >>late to change. > > > That was my preference too, but Raymond disagreed and somehow tried to > find support for his position :-). > > Since buffer objects (of course :-) support the C-level buffer > protocol, they can still be used in most places where strings are > needed. But it would be incompatible. But so is Raymond's solution > (because it changes buffer()[:] to also return a string). > >>Note that the only case where a buffer object >>is returned in Python 2.x (x < 3) is if you write >>buffer()[:], i.e. you want a copy of the buffer object. > > What does a copy of a buffer object buy you? Nothing... since you only get a new reference, not an independent copy. > It's not too late to revert Raymond's changes. Why not try the buffer slice returns buffer logic for a few alphas, then betas, and then if noone complains the final release ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH _______________________________________________________________________ eGenix.com -- Makers of the Python mx Extensions: mxDateTime,mxODBC,... Python Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4