On 3/2/08, Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de> wrote: > > Alex Martelli wrote: > > Yep, but please do keep the PyUnicode for str and PyString for bytes > > (as macros/synonnyms of PyStr and PyBytes if you want!-) to help the > > task of porting existing extensions... the bytearray functions should > > no doubt be PyBytearray, though. > > > Yeah, we've already planed to keep PyUnicode as prefix for str type > functions. It makes perfectly sense, not only from the historical point > of view. > > But for PyString I planed to rename the prefix to PyBytes. In my opinion > we are going to regret it, when we keep too many legacy names from 2.x. > In order to make the migration process easier I can add a header file > that provides PyString_* functions as aliases for PyBytes_* +1 on only doing this via a header that must be explicitly included by modules wanting the compatibility names. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20080302/3d37f586/attachment.htm
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