[Python-ideas] Fixing the Python 3 bytes constructor

[Nick Coghlan]

On 2 Apr 2014 22:01, "Donald Stufft" <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2 Apr 2014 12:52, "Ethan Furman" <ethan at 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.
>>
>>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20140402/266df7db/attachment.html>