July 18, 2016
9:58 p.m.
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~