> 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. > 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? It's not too late to revert Raymond's changes. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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