[issue21180] Efficiently create empty array.array, consistent with bytearray

[Terry J. Reedy]

Terry J. Reedy added the comment:

A few notes: This issue depends on PEP467, but there is no corresponding tracker issue yet to put in the dependency box. Title and other headers can be edited. Messages and uploaded files can be unlinked from the issue but not edited (or deleted from the database). Nick and other developers are busy with PyCon, so please be patient.

Why this issue depends on the PEP: There is a general feeling that a default class constructor can be overloaded too far, and that a separate constructor method is sometimes better. Many people think that byte(s/array) is the worst stdlib example of 'too much'. In particular, few seem to like the 0 initializaiton and many dislike it. Changing it is the motivation for the PEP. From Guido's comments, I expect that some version of this change will be accepted even if other parts of the PEP are rejected and eliminated (as some already have been).

In summary, while Martin and I agree that 'copy the existing bytearray api' should be rejected, we also think that 'copy the new api' can be considered if and when there is one.

----------
stage:  -> test needed
title: Cannot efficiently create empty array.array of given size, inconsistency with bytearray -> Efficiently create empty array.array, consistent with bytearray
type: performance -> enhancement
versions: +Python 3.5 -Python 3.4

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue21180>
_______________________________________