Cult-like behaviour [was Re: Kindness]
roel at roelschroeven.net
Tue Jul 17 18:38:49 EDT 2018
Chris Angelico schreef op 17/07/2018 0:48:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Roel Schroeven <roel at roelschroeven.net> wrote:
>> In any case, even though Python 3's byte strings are not quite unlike Python
>> 2's strings, they're not exactly like them either. And I feel there are
>> cases where that makes things somewhat harder, even though I can't prove it.
> You're absolutely right, and some of those differences were repaired
> in different 3.x versions (for instance, the ability to use
> percent-formatting with byte strings was reinstated in 3.5).
Indeed, and that was very helpful.
> Some of the differences are fundamental, but anything else should be
> considered fair game for an enhancement request. So next time you go
> "ugh, Python 3's byte strings are such a pain because XYZ", post here
> or on python-ideas about a possible fix.
I'll remember that.
> That said, though, the fact that indexing a byte string yields an int
> instead of a one-byte string is basically unable to be changed now,
> and IMO it'd be better to be consistent with text strings than with
> bytearray. I'm not sure how many of the core devs agree that
> b'spam' ought to be b'p' rather than 112, but I'd say they all
> agree that it's too late to change it.
I had expected b'spam' would be b'p', and it took me some to figure
out it was 112 and that that was why my code wasn't working anymore when
I converted it from Python 2 to Python 3. But that doesn't necessarily
mean b'p' would have been better than 112. A case can be made for both.
I'm aware of it now, and it's not a big deal anymore. And indeed, too
late to change.
"Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a
friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger."
-- Franklin P. Jones
More information about the Python-list