scott wrote: > I look at buffers as mutable byte-strings. Having buffers = pickle/unpickle > (without a temporary copy) would avoid most of the questions about = data > types/sizes, endian-ness, ..., while allowing things which built on = top of > buffers (array modules for instance) to pickle efficiently. umm. pickles are supposed to be machine-independent, so how can you pickle stuff built on buffers *without* taking types/sizes/endianess = into account? </F>
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