On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:51:25AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I'm afraid that PEP is not up to date; I don't think I used it as a > reference when I coded up the current bytes type in Py3k. Whenever the > PEP matches the implementation, we can be confident that we have the > right design. Where they differ, I'd be inclined to believe the code, > unless it's a matter of an as-yet-unimplemented feature, or a > temporary measure while we still have the 8-bit str type. Is the Py3k bytes type considered 'finished', then, or at least 'largely correct', or is it still experimental? I could backport the type to the 2.x branch; it could be a new feature in 2.6 and then be added to Jython. 2.6 wouldn't go changing existing APIs to begin requiring or returning the bytes type[*], of course, but extensions and new modules might use it. --amk [*] Anyone else keep wanting to write "byte type"?
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