On 2 Apr 2014 12:52, "Ethan Furman" <ethan@stoneleaf.us> 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 code using that idiom, and it's a lot longer than the
>> 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 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.