On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Adam Olsen wrote: > On 1/17/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: >> On 1/17/06, Adam Olsen <rhamph at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> In-favour-of-%2b-ly y'rs, >>> >>> My only opposition to this is that the byte type may want to use it. >>> I'd rather wait until byte is fully defined, implemented, and >>> released >>> in a python version before that option is taken away. >> >> Has this been proposed? What would %b print? > > I don't believe it's been proposed and I don't know what it'd print. > Perhaps it indicates the bytes should be passed through without > conversion. That doesn't make any sense. What is "without conversion"? Does that mean UTF-8, UCS-2, UCS-4, latin-1, Shift-JIS? You can't have unicode without some kind of conversion. > In any case I only advocate waiting until it's clear that bytes have > no need for it before we use it for binary conversions. I don't see what business a byte type has mingling with string formatters other than the normal str and repr coercions via %s and %r respectively. -bob
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