I don't even know what to believe anymore. That documentation is referring to two types, with "raw" renamed to "str" plus a new "bin", which is what I thought it was.
But the link you posted referred to three types, where "str" and "bin" subclass "raw", which sounded like it provided a non-backward-compatible "str" that's guaranteed to be text.
But the link you posted referred to three types, where "str" and "bin" subclass "raw", which sounded like it provided a non-backward-compatible "str" that's guaranteed to be text.