On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There's actually another aspect to your idea, independent of the naming: exposing a view rather than just an iterator. I'm going to have to look at the implications for memoryview, but it may be a good way to go (and would align with the iterator -> view changes in dict).
Yep! Maybe that will inspire a better spelling. :)
+1. It's just as much about b[i] as it is about "for c in b", so a view sounds right. (The view would have to be mutable for bytearrays and for writable memoryviews.) On the rest, it's sounding more and more as if we will just need to live with both bytes(1000) and bytearray(1000). A warning sounds worse than a deprecation to me. bytes.zeros(n) sounds fine to me; I value similar interfaces for bytes and bytearray pretty highly. I'm lukewarm on bytes.byte(c); but bytes([c]) does bother me because a size one list is (or at least feels) more expensive to allocate than a size one bytes object. So, okay. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)