On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:07:51 -0700, Josiah Carlson email@example.com wrote:
"Paul Moore" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I had picked up on this comment, and I have to say that I had been a little surprised by the resistance to the change based on the "code would break" argument, when you had made such a thorough attempt to address this. Perhaps others had missed this point, though.
I'm also concerned about future usability.
Me too (perhaps in a different way though).
Word in the Py3k list is that Python 2.6 will be just about the last Python in the 2.x series, and by directing his implementation at only Python 2.x strings, he's just about guaranteeing obsolescence.
People will be using 2.x for a long time to come. And in the long run, isn't all software obsolete? :)
By building with unicode and/or objects with a buffer interface in mind, Larry could build with both 2.x and 3.x in mind, and his code wouldn't be obsolete the moment it was released.
(I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is in the above, I'm going to assume it's Python 3.x.)
Supporting unicode strings and objects providing the buffer interface seems like a good idea in general, even disregarding Py3k. Starting with str is reasonable though, since there's still plenty of code that will benefit from this change, if it is indeed a beneficial change.
Larry, I'm going to try to do some benchmarks against Twisted using this patch, but given my current time constraints, you may be able to beat me to this :) If you're interested, Twisted trunk@HEAD plus this trial plugin:
will let you do some gross measurements using the Twisted test suite. I can give some more specific pointers if this sounds like something you'd want to mess with.