Message103910
| Author |
lemburg |
| Recipients |
lemburg, loewis, pitrou, vstinner |
| Date |
2010年04月21日.20:44:54 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.724571e-08 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<4BCF63F9.8050701@egenix.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1271852937.17.0.825806652857.issue8485@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@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. |
|