On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:58:30 -0800 Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote: > On 02/24/2014 09:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:15:29 -0800 > > Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote: > >> On 02/23/2014 02:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >>> > >>> It's a harm containment tactic, based on the assumption people *will* > >>> want to include the output of ascii() in binary protocols containing > >>> ASCII segments, regardless of whether or not we consider their reasons > >>> for doing so to be particularly good. > >> > >> One possible problem with %a -- it becomes the bytes equivalent of %s in Python 2 strings, with the minor exception of > >> how unicode strings are handled (quote marks are added). In other words, instead of %d, one could use %a. > >> > >> On the other hand, %a is so much more user-friendly than b'%s' % ('%d' % 123).encode('ascii', errors='backslashreplace'). > > > > But why not b'%d' % 123 ? > > I was just using 123 as an example of the user-unfriendliness of the rest of that line. The thing is, we don't have any believable example of a data type for which '%a' would be useful. IME, most formatting happens with basic data types such as str, int, etc., and '%a' can't be useful for those. Regards Antoine.
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