RetroSearch Browse

Wed Feb 15 18:17:44 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061024.html

On 2/15/06, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we went with longer names, a slight variation on the opentext/openbinary
> idea would be to use opentext and opendata.

After some thinking I don't like opendata any more -- often data is
text, so the term is wrong. openbinary is fine but long. So how about
openbytes? This clearly links the resulting object with the bytes
type, which is mutually reassuring.

Regarding open vs. opentext, I'm still not sure. I don't want to
generalize from the openbytes precedent to openstr or openunicode
(especially since the former is wrong in 2.x and the latter is wrong
in 3.0). I'm tempting to hold out for open() since it's most
compatible.

--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061024.html below:

[Python-Dev] str object going in Py3K