On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:28:30 -0600, Shane Holloway (IEEE) <shane.holloway at ieee.org> wrote: > One of the greatest things I use struct is for is packing (and > unpacking) the python building blocks for "external use" -- network, > database, and (usually C) libraries. I think it would be best if all > the building blocks could be packed and unpacked from one module. > > The additions to binascii would be more convenient to use of the two > additions. But truth to tell, I rarely use binascii. I tend to prefer > struct.pack with str.encode. > > What do you think about adding long.tobytes()/long.frombytes() to go > with the new bytes() type? <wink> Sorry for introducing my not-very-qualified words on this topic, but... I've read the thread up to this point wondering why the bytes() type were not being thought of as a clean and definitive solution to this problem. It would allow to greatly simplify everything regarding struct, binascii and arbitrary low level data manipulation for networking and similar stuff. I also agree with Tim Peters comments regarding struct's C heritage -- I never really liked C even when I *had* to use it daily, and the struct syntax still reads alien to me. I know this is another timeframe entirely, but *if* my vote counted, I would be +1 for a future struct implementation tightly integrated with the bytes() type. But that's me anyway. -- Carlos Ribeiro Consultoria em Projetos blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com mail: carribeiro at gmail.com mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com
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