Cult-like behaviour [was Re: Kindness]

Roel Schroeven roel at
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> 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'[1] 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'[1] 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

Roel Schroeven

More information about the Python-list mailing list