A RetroSearch Logo

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

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-January/041837.html below:

[Python-Dev] Fixes for imageop module

[Python-Dev] Fixes for imageop moduleSjoerd Mullender sjoerd at acm.org
Fri Jan 9 04:01:35 EST 2004
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>Hm.  Anybody who uses the imageop module currently on Linux will find
>>>their programs broken.  The strings manipulated by imageop all end up
>>>either being written to a file or handed to some drawing code, and
>>>changing the byte order would definitely break things!
>>
>>That's why I asked.
>>
>>
>>>So I don't think this is an acceptable change.  I take it that for
>>>IRIX, the byte order implied by the old code is simply wrong?  Maybe
>>>the module can be given a global (shrudder?) byte order setting that
>>>you can change but that defaults to the old setting?
>>
>>The problem is, the documentation says: "This is the same format as used 
>>by gl.lrectwrite() and the imgfile module."  This implies the byte order 
>>that you get on the SGI which is opposite of what you get on Intel. The 
>>code produced the correct results on the SGI, but not on Intel.
> 
> 
> Your fix would be okay if until now it was *only* used on IRIX with
> gl.lrectwrite() and/or the imgfile module.  But how can we prove that?

I don't know.

>>(By the way, I'm away from computers for a week starting tomorrow 
>>extremely early.)
> 
> 
> It's okay to way a week before making a decision.

I'm back (and have been this week).  Any thoughts about a decision?

-- 
Sjoerd Mullender <sjoerd at acm.org>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

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