[Python-3000] PEP 3137 plan of attack (original) (raw)
Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Wed Oct 10 22:30:36 CEST 2007
- Previous message: [Python-3000] PEP 3137 plan of attack
- Next message: [Python-3000] PEP 3137 plan of attack
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 10/10/07, Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de> wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote: > I agree that this is quite confusing. The PyBytes functions can be changed > without a thought since they aren't 2.x heritage. Since PyBuffer* is already > taken, what about a PyByteBuffer prefix? PyString could then be renamed > to PyByteString. PyUnicode might be allowed to stay...
I like your idea! IMHO PyUnicode can stay. It reflects the intention and aim of the type and it's easy to remember. str() contains unicode data and it's C name is PyUnicode. That works for me. g For the other two names I find PyBytes for bytes() and PyBytesBuffer for buffer() easier to remember and more consistent.
+1 from me. No need to have PyBytes_ be PyBytesString_ as the string tie-in will become historical. Plus PyBytes_ is shorter without losing any detail of what the functions work with.
-Brett
- Previous message: [Python-3000] PEP 3137 plan of attack
- Next message: [Python-3000] PEP 3137 plan of attack
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]