RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 13 11:11:18 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047773.html

Skip Montanaro wrote:
>     >> That's why I think a special literal is necessary.  There'd be no
>     >> unicode foolishness involved. ;-) They'd just be raw uninterpreted
>     >> bytes.
> 
>     Martin> But you'd spell them b"GET", no? If so, which numeric value has
>     Martin> "G"?
> 
> Good point...

I don't think I understand the example...

What's binary about 'GET' ?

Why would you want to put non-ASCII into a binary literal
definition ?

If we switch the binding of 'yyy' to mean unicode('yyy')
some day, why can't we just continue to use the existing implementation
for 8-bit strings for b'xxx' (the current implementation is already
doing the right thing, meaning that it is 8-bit safe regardeless
of the source code encoding) ?

Thanks,
-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Aug 13 2004)
 >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
 >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
 >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047773.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: adding a bytes sequence type to Python