Benjamin Peterson writes:
> I agree. This is a very important, much-requested feature for low-level
> networking code.
I hear it's much-requested, but is there any description of typical
use cases? The ones I've seen on this list and on -ideas are
typically stream-oriented, and seem like they would be perfectly
well-served in terms of code readability and algorithmic accuracy by
reading with .decode('ascii', errors='surrogateescape') and writing
with .encode() and the same parameters (or as latin1).
> Yes, I don't think we need to support very much of the formatting
> language cover 99.8% of formating cases for bytes.
And the other 0.02% will be continuous excuses for RFEs and gratuitous
bugs in rarely used format specs and ports from str processing to
bytes processing.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4