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/2006-February/061656.html below:

PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349?]]

[Python-Dev] s/bytes/octet/ [Was:Re: bytes.from_hex() [Was: PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349?]] [Python-Dev] s/bytes/octet/ [Was:Re: bytes.from_hex() [Was: PEP 332 revival in coordination with pep 349?]]Delaney, Timothy (Tim) tdelaney at avaya.com
Tue Feb 21 23:23:39 CET 2006
Greg Ewing wrote:

> 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.

Speaking of which, I suspect it'll be a lot more common to need integer
objects in the full range [0, 255] than it is now.

Perhaps we should extend the pre-allocated integer objects to cover the
full byte range.

Tim Delaney
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