[Python-Dev] byte literals unnecessary [Was: PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349?]
nas at arctrix.com
Wed Feb 15 00:38:33 CET 2006
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 03:13:37PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Also, bytes objects are (in my mind anyway) mutable. We have no other
> literal notation for mutable objects. What would the following code
> for i in range(2):
> b = b"abc"
> print b
> b = ord("A")
> Would the second output line print abc or Abc?
> I guess the only answer that makes sense is that it should print abc
> both times; but that means that b"abc" must be internally implemented
> by creating a new bytes object each time. Perhaps the implementation
> effort isn't so minimal after all...
I agree. I was thinking that bytes() would be immutable and
therefore very similar to the current str object. You've convinced
me that a literal representation is not needed. Thanks for
clarifying your position.
> (PS why is there a reply-to in your email the excludes you from the
> list of recipients but includes me?)
Maybe you should ask your coworkers. :-) I think gmail is trying to
do something intelligent with the Mail-Followup-To header.
More information about the Python-Dev