"Byte" type?

Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de
Sun Feb 22 10:15:14 EST 2009

Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
> "Christian Heimes" <lis....s.de> wrote:
>> John Nagle wrote
>>>    If "bytes", a new keyword, works differently in 2.6 and 3.0, that was
>>> really
>>> dumb.  There's no old code using "bytes".  So converting code to 2.6 means
>>> it has to be converted AGAIN for 3.0.  That's a good reason to ignore
>>> 2.6 as
>>> defective.
>> Please don't call something dumb that you don't fully understand. It's
>> offenses the people who have spent lots of time developing Python --
>> personal, unpaid and voluntary time!
> Crying out;  "Please do not criticise me, I am doing it for free!" does
> not justify delivering sub standard work - that is the nature of the
> open source process - if you lift your head and say or do something,
> there are bound to be some objections - some thoughtful and valid,
> and others merely carping.  Being sensitive about it serves no purpose.

There are proper and polites way to criticize somebody or something --
it's called constructive criticism -- and there are offensive ways. I
hope we can all agree that calling something dumb without good reason is

The bytes alias does exactly what it was designed for -- and documented,
too. It just doesn't do what somebody expects it to do. Is this really
sub standard? I don't think so!


More information about the Python-list mailing list