Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le jeudi 22 avril 2010 00:21:02, vous avez écrit :
>> Victor Stinner wrote:
>>> I will be very sad if someone ask me to keep bytearray filename support
>>> in 3.2 because I opened a lot of issues about surrogates and I would make
>>> my work more diffcult :-(
>> I don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding bytearray, but
>> even if you deprecated it rather than dropping it, couldn't you just add
>> the surrogate support for the Unicode path and leave the bytecode path
>> with the legacy behaviour?
>
> Yes, we can do everything. But does it really have a sense? No Python function
> using filenames return a bytearray object. Example: os.listdir() and os.walk()
> result type is bytes or str.
Oh, never mind then, I misunderstood the question ('bytearray' flipped
to 'bytes' in my brain).
I don't see the point in allowing a mutable argument either.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
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