Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Graham: thanks for pointing that out; I completely forgot we already 
> *had* the migration discussion on the Web-SIG!  It just slipped my 
> mind because I didn't have any 3.0 work on the horizon.

Good to see we came to conclusion. Actually my first patch went in the 
right direction. :-)

> Dmitry: A question about the new patch.  Are bytearray and memoryview 
> objects in 3.0 really the same as bytestrings?  It seems to me that 
> allowing mutable bytes objects is a mistake from a bug-finding 
> standpoint, even if it could be a win from a performance 
> standpoint.  I think it might be better to be more restrictive to 
> start out, and then let people lobby for supporting other types, 
> rather than the other way around, where we'll never get to narrow the 
> list.  Apart from that, the patch looks pretty good.  Thank you!

Actually I thought about functionality, not performance but I think 
you're right and mutable bytes objects also can open doors for 
unexpected side effects. I'll update the patch today.