Translate isn't a text operation. (That's the api I wanted).  The others I
only lists for completeness because someone else would complain if I
hadn't. ;)
On Mar 1, 2013 12:57 PM, "Terry J. Reedy" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Terry J. Reedy added the comment:
>
> I think you need to make more of a case for 'should'. Bytearrays are,
> well, byte arrays, not text arrays. I could just as well claim that the
> ascii text operations should not even be there. They are certainly not
> needed for typical mixed binary-ascii protocol strings, which is what
> bytearrars were intended for. In any case, this would fatten the api
> considerably for not too much benefit. I think that this, like many or most
> enhancement proposals, should best be discussed on python-ideas list before
> any tracker action.
>
> I consider translate an exception to the above comments. It is a byte
> operation, not a text operations. bytearry.translate could plausibly have
> been defined as 'in-place' when added. Most of the other operations are
> special cases of translate, and can therefore be done with translate,
> without the limitation to only ascii chars. If one wants to directly
> uppercase latin-1 encoded bytes without decoding to text, one would need
> .translate anyway.
>
> ----------
> components: +Library (Lib) -Interpreter Core
> nosy: +terry.reedy
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17301>
> _______________________________________
>