Christian Heimes wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
>> I have no intention of rolling this back. It isn't compatible with
>> 3.0, but then, 2.6 and 3.0 aren't in general meant to be compatible --
>> 2.6 is a stepping stone, but that's not the same thing. It is
>> backwards compatible with prior
Guido van Rossum wrote:
It was well understood that the bytes "type" in 2.6 and the bytes type
in 3.0 would behave quite different. Attempts to come up with a
separate bytes type that behaved more like its 3.0 counterpart were
doomed, because there just are too many places where the usage was
amb
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This does make it look rather as though bytes == str was a decision
> whose consequences weren't fully appreciated before implementation.
>
> Was this horror anticipated?
It was well understood that the bytes "type" in 2.6
Brett Cannon wrote:
> What I would like to know if there are any other gotchas beyond the
> constructor as all of the other uses act as you would expect.
Mainly that indexing returns one character substrings instead of ints.
The bytes type is there as an indicator of what bytes literals represent
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This does make it look rather as though bytes == str was a decision
> whose consequences weren't fully appreciated before implementation.
>
Well, you could say that about almost any change.
> Was this horror anticipated?
This does make it look rather as though bytes == str was a decision
whose consequences weren't fully appreciated before implementation.
Was this horror anticipated?
regards
Steve
Original Message
Subject: In Python 2.6, bytes is str
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:30:17 -0700
From:
