On 2 Apr 2014 22:01, "Donald Stufft"
On Apr 2, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Nick Coghlan
wrote: On 2 Apr 2014 12:52, "Ethan Furman"
wrote: On 04/01/2014 09:30 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > x = bytes.byte(data[0])
Hm. I don't find that very attractive. You can't write Python 2/3
original. The only redeeming feature is that it clearly fails when data is empty, and possibly that you don't have to compute the second index (which could be awkward if the first index is an expression).
I'm not denying that we need bytes.byte(), but this doesn't sound
code using that idiom, and it's a lot longer than the like much of a motivation. Just pointing to the need
of bytes/bytestring equivalents for chr() makes more sense to me.
We already have ord() and chr() -- maybe we should just add byte().
I thought of that, but it seems like a recipe for typos and confusion. bytes.byte and bytearray.byte seem clearer and safer.
Cheers, Nick.
I don't like byte(), way to much potential for confusion with bytes(), but maybe bchr() is a reasonable thing.
There's no need for it to be a builtin at all. The class method alternative constructor approach handles the problem just fine. Cheers, Nick.
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372
DCFA