RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jan 18 03:26:53 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059862.html

On 1/17/06, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Is the byte type intended to be involved in string formatters at all? 
Does byte("%i") % 3 have the obvious effect, or is it an error?

Although upon further consideration I don't see any case where %s and
%b would have different effects.. *shrug* I never said it did have a
purpose, just that it *might* be given a purpose when byte was spec'd
out.

--
Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059862.html below:

[Python-Dev] str with base