On donderdag, mei 2, 2002, at 06:46 , Scott Gilbert wrote: > I guess I'm not getting the Python philosophy of things then. We have > "string"s which are doubling as readonly-byte-arrays and > text-strings, and > I thought the concensus around here was that this was an unfortunate > duality. Then we have "unicode"s which are clearly just for > text-strings. > Both of these are immutable as per the philosophy that strings > are a lot > like numbers. > > Then we have buffer objects. If the buffer object is a > mistake, then there > is no endorsed way to get at a (possibly mutable) array of bytes from > Python. One can use arrays of typecode 'B', but you can't > point those at > your own memory, and they don't pickle. > > So if someone would only charge up the time machine, I thought > it would be > preferrable to only have unicode objects, and buffer objects. > (Possibly > with unicode objects being renamed as strings instead...) I think we need immutable binary byte arrays as well, these are used for code objects and such. But I agree that a mutable binary array type such as the bufferobject is needed for efficient Python implementation of lots of things. -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
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