Marc-Andre Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> added the comment: Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > > Or perhaps the bytearray can be converted to a bytes object. This is not > optimal performance-wise but is unlikely to make a difference in real-world > code (if you are passing a filename to an external API, chances are some IO > will occur which will dwarf the cost of creating a separate bytes object). > > But I agree that supporting bytearrays in filename-taking functions, while > "nice" from a consistency point of view, isn't really useful in practice. So > I would be ok to remove that support if it simplifies (or avoids > complexifying) the logic for those functions.
+1 bytearrays are basically the remains of the attempt to use mutable byte string objects in Python 3.x. They may gain some usefulness in the future, but I doubt that this will be in the area of filenames. ---------- nosy: +lemburg _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8485> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
