Antoine Pitrou writes:
> Bytes objects are often used for partly ASCII strings,
All I can say to that phrase is, "urk, ISO 2022 anyone?"
> not arbitrary "arrays of bytes". And making indexing of bytes
> objects return ints was IMHO a mistake.
Bytes objects are not ASCII strings, even though they can be used to
represent them. The practice of using magic numbers that look like
English words is a useful one, but by the same token, it should not be
too easy to use bytes to represent *text* just because the programmer
doesn't know any words that don't fit into 7*N bits. With PEP 393,
there isn't even really a space excuse.
AFAICS, anything that should be done with ASCII-punned magic numbers
("protocol tokens", if you prefer) can be done with slices and (ta-da!)
case conversion. (Sorry, Nick!) But the components of a bytes object
are just numbers; they are not characters until you've run them
through a codec.
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