Greg Ewing wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>
>> Storing byte information as 16 or 32 bits ints could take up a rather
>> lot of memory in some cases.
>
> I don't quite see the point here. Inside a bytes object,
> they would be stored 1 byte per byte. Nobody is suggesting
> that they would take up more than that just because
> a_bytes_object[i] happens to return an int.
Yes, and the above is the obvious reason why not. Not that I thought it
was being considered.
> So the only reason to introduce a new "byte" type is to
> remove some of the operations that int has. We can already
> do bitwise operations on an int, so we don't need a new
> type to add that capability.
Yes, and a byte type isn't needed if the individual bytes are always in
a bytes object. A bytes object with a single byte would be an octet in
that case.
> What's more, I can see this leading to people asking for
> arithmetic operations to be *added* to the byte type so
> they can do wrap-around arithmetic, and then for 16-bit,
> 32-bit, 64-bit etc. versions of it, etc. etc.
I agree the bytes object shouldn't re implement arithmetic. I would
like bitwise logic operations on bytes() and byte ranges() if possible.
Cheers,
Ronald Adam
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