M.-A. Lemburg schrieb:
Isn't that an awefuly confusing approach ?
Wouldn't it be better to keep PyString APIs and definitions in stringobject.c|h
and only add a new bytesobject.h header file that #defines the PyBytes APIs in terms of PyString APIs ? That maintains backwards compatibility and allows Python internals to use the new API names.
With your approach, you've basically backported the confusing notion in Py3k that str() maps PyUnicode, only that in Py2 str() will now map to PyBytes.
The last time I brought up the topic, I had a lengthy discussion with Guido. At first I wanted to rename the API in Python 3.0 only. Guido argued that it's going to cause too much merge conflicts. He then suggested the approach I implemented today.
I find the approach less confusing than your suggestion and my initial idea. The internal API names are consistent for Python 2.6 and 3.0. The byte string C API is prefixed PyBytes and the unicode C API is prefixed PyUnicode. A core developer has just to remember that 'str' is a byte string in 2.x but an unicode object in 3.0.
Extension developers don't have to worry at all. The ABI and external API is mostly the same and still exposes the 'str' functions as PyString.
You'd have to add an aliase bytes -> str to the builtins to at least reduce the confusion a bit.
Python 2.6 already has an alias bytes -> str
Yes, but please let's first discuss this some more. I don't think that the timing was right.... you started this thread just yesterday and the patches are already checked in.
I'm sorry if I was too hasty for you. I got +1 from a couple of developers and it's basically Guido's suggestion.