[issue8485] Don't accept bytearray as filenames, or simplify the API

[Marc-Andre Lemburg]

Marc-Andre Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> added the comment:

Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou at free.fr> added the comment:
> 
> Or perhaps the bytearray can be converted to a bytes object. This is not optimal performance-wise but is unlikely to make a difference in real-world code (if you are passing a filename to an external API, chances are some IO will occur which will dwarf the cost of creating a separate bytes object).
> 
> But I agree that supporting bytearrays in filename-taking functions, while "nice" from a consistency point of view, isn't really useful in practice. So I would be ok to remove that support if it simplifies (or avoids complexifying) the logic for those functions.

+1

bytearrays are basically the remains of the attempt to use mutable
byte string objects in Python 3.x. They may gain some usefulness
in the future, but I doubt that this will be in the area of filenames.

----------
nosy: +lemburg

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue8485>
_______________________________________