"Byte" type?

[Matthew Woodcraft]

"Hendrik van Rooyen" <mail at microcorp.co.za> writes:

> "Christian Heimes" <lis....s.de> wrote:
> on the surface JN has a point - If you have to go through two
> conversions, then 2.6 does not achieve what it appears to set out to
> do. So the issue is simple:

> - do you have to convert twice?
> - If yes - why? - as he says - there exists no prior code,
>   so there seems to be no reason not to make it identical
>   to 3.0

You don't have to convert twice. You don't have to use 'bytes' in 2.6 at
all. It's there in 2.6 to make some strategies for transition to 3.x
easier.

Note that 'bytes' is not (as JN asserted) a keyword, so its inclusion
won't break existing programs which were using it as an identifier.

-M-