"Byte" type?

[Hendrik van Rooyen]

"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.

> I can assure, the bytes alias and b'' alias have their right to exist.

This is not a helpful response - 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

The response answers neither of these valid concerns.

- Hendrik