RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 18 17:58:37 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-July/145643.html

On 07/18/2016 02:01 PM, Jonathan Goble wrote:

>> This PEP isn't revisiting that original design decision, just changing the
>> spelling as users sometimes find the current behaviour of the binary
>> sequence
>> constructors surprising. In particular, there's a reasonable case to be made
>> that ``bytes(x)`` (where ``x`` is an integer) should behave like the
>> ``bytes.byte(x)`` proposal in this PEP. Providing both behaviours as
>> separate
>> class methods avoids that ambiguity.
>
> You have a leftover bytes.byte here.

Thanks, fixed (plus the other couple locations ;)

--
~Ethan~

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-July/145643.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 467: next round