homepage

> To restate my position: the need is for an immutable string of bytes, [...]
I disagree that we should require the dictionary to be immutable - if the
caller wishes to use a mutable buffer here, it is their responsibility to
ensure that it is not modified until the compressor is finished with it
("consenting adults" and all that). The documentation can inform users of
this requirement.
> I believe the argument for aesthetics does not apply, as the constant
> dictionary constructor argument is a morally different kind of
> parameter, comparable to (say) the compression level.
Even so, the surrounding code sets a precedent for how it accepts binary
data buffers, and deviating from this existing convention should not be
taken lightly.
Nitpicking about the API aside, thanks for the patch :-)