On Wed, 3 May 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote: >... > My ASCII proposal is a compromise that tries to be fair to both uses > for strings. Introducing byte arrays as a more fundamental type has > been on the wish list for a long time -- I see no way to introduce > this into Python 1.6 without totally botching the release schedule > (June 1st is very close already!). I'd like to be able to move on, > there are other important things still to be added to 1.6 (Vladimir's > malloc patches, Neil's GC, Fredrik's completed sre...). > > For 1.7 (which should happen later this year) I promise I'll reopen > the discussion on byte arrays. See my other note. I think a simple change to the buffer() builtin would allow read/write byte arrays to be simply constructed. There are a couple API changes that could be made to bufferobject.[ch] which could simplify some operations for C code and returning buffer objects. But changes like that would be preconditioned on accepting the change in return type from those extensions. For example, the doc may say something returns a string; while buffer objects are similar to strings in operation, they are not the *same*. IMO, Python 1.7 would be a good time to alter return types to buffer objects as appropriate. (but I'm not adverse to doing it today! (to get people used to the difference in purposes)) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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