Some comments in C code still refer to bytearray object as bytes object and to bytes object as string object.

The proposed PR fixes outdated comments.

It also moves the definition of macros F_LJUST etc from public header to private header. They are only used internally and never leaked to the user. They were defined in two places: in Include/bytesobject.h and Objects/bytesobject.c.

Is it true that headers in Include/internal are more private than headers in Include/cpython? It is not clear from names.

> Is it true that headers in Include/internal are more private than headers in Include/cpython? It is not clear from names.

You cannot include an header file from Include/internal by default. All internal header files are guarded with:

#ifndef Py_BUILD_CORE
#  error "this header requires Py_BUILD_CORE define"
#endif

A C extension must define Py_BUILD_CORE macro or variant to include such header file. There is no intent to tehcnically prevent to include a header file, only an header to warn users that you should not do that unless they understand what they do.

(Sorry, I need more coffee. New attempt.)

A C extension must define Py_BUILD_CORE macro or variant to include such header file. There is no intent to technically prevent to include a header file, only an intent to warn users that they should not do that unless they understand what they do.

New changeset 2ad93821a69e6efac3b0efe1d205d6e5ef030791 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'master':
bpo-42431: Fix outdated bytes comments (GH-23458)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/2ad93821a69e6efac3b0efe1d205d6e5ef030791