On 01/12/2014 03:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> There's a lot of discussion about PEP 460 and I haven't read it all.
> Maybe you all have already reached the same conclusion that I have.
No, no agreement has been reached. Your contribution is timely.
> PEP 460 itself currently rejects support for %d, AFAIK on the basis
> that bytes aren't necessarily ASCII. I think that's a misunderstanding
> of the intention of the bytes type.
> [...] this does not mean the bytes type isn't allowed to have a
> noticeable bias in favor of encodings that are ASCII supersets, even
> if not all bytes objects contain such data [...]
> IMO it's totally fine and consistent if b'%d' % 42 returns b'42' and
> also for b'{}'.format(42) to return b'42' [...]
>
> - byte literals: b'abc' (it's a syntax error to have a non-ASCII character here)
> - the upper() and lower() methods modify the ASCII letter positions
> - int(b'42') == 42, float(b'3.14') == 3.14
So if we allow the numeric modifiers [1], the only remaining question is do we allow %c and %s, and if so how do they
behave?
Guido?
--
~Ethan~
[1] modifiers is not the right word for %i, %x, etc, is it? What is the correct term?
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