On 01/16/2014 05:32 PM, Greg wrote:
>
> I don't think it matters whether the internal details of that
> debate make sense to the rest of us. The main thing is that
> a consensus seems to have been reached on bytes formatting
> being basically a good thing.
And a good thing, too, on both counts! :)
A few folks have suggested not implementing .format() on bytes; I've been resistant, but then I remembered that format
is also a function.
http://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html?highlight=ascii#format
======================================================================
format(value[, format_spec])
Convert a value to a “formatted” representation, as controlled by format_spec. The interpretation of format_spec
will depend on the type of the value argument, however there is a standard formatting syntax that is used by most
built-in types: Format Specification Mini-Language.
The default format_spec is an empty string which usually gives the same effect as calling str(value).
A call to format(value, format_spec) is translated to type(value).__format__(format_spec) which bypasses the
instance dictionary when searching for the value’s __format__() method. A TypeError exception is raised if the method is
not found or if either the format_spec or the return value are not strings.
======================================================================
Given that, I can relent on .format and just go with .__mod__ . A low-level service for a low-level protocol, what? ;)
--
~Ethan~
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