"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Hudson wrote:
>
>> > OTOH, even if we didn't rename str/unicode to text, opentext would
>> > still be a good name for the function that opens a text file.
>>
>> Hnnrgh, not really. You're not opening a 'text', nor are you
>> constructing some
Michael Hudson wrote:
> > OTOH, even if we didn't rename str/unicode to text, opentext would
> > still be a good name for the function that opens a text file.
>
> Hnnrgh, not really. You're not opening a 'text', nor are you
> constructing something that might reasonably be called an 'opentext'.
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OTOH, even if we didn't rename str/unicode to text, opentext would
> still be a good name for the function that opens a text file.
Hnnrgh, not really. You're not opening a 'text', nor are you
constructing something that might reasonably be called an
On 2/16/06, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While we're at it, any chance of renaming str/unicode to text in 3.0?
> It's a MUCH better name, as evidenced by the opentext/openbytes names.
> str is just some odd C-ism.
>
> Obviously it's a form of gratuitous breakage, but I think the long
>
Adam Olsen wrote:
> While we're at it, any chance of renaming str/unicode to text in 3.0?
> It's a MUCH better name, as evidenced by the opentext/openbytes names.
> str is just some odd C-ism.
>
> Obviously it's a form of gratuitous breakage, but I think the long
> term benefits are enough that w
