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
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