"Christian Heimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Terry Reedy wrote: | > If orig_data were mutable (the new buffer, as proposed in the PEP), would | > not | > | > for i in range(len(orig_data)): | > orig_data[i] &= 0x1F | > | > do it in place? (I don't have .0a1 to try on the current bytes.) | | Good catch! | | Python 3.0a1 (py3k:58282, Sep 29 2007, 15:07:57) | [GCC 4.1.2 (Ubuntu 4.1.2-0ubuntu4)] on linux2 | >>> orig_data = b"abc" | >>> orig_data | b'abc' | >>> for i in range(len(orig_data)): | ... orig_data[i] &= 0x1F | ... | >>> orig_data | b'\x01\x02\x03'
Thanks for testing this! Glad it worked. This sort of thing makes having bytes/buffer[i] an int a plus. (Just noticed, PEP accepted.) | It'd be useful and more efficient if the new buffer type would support | the bit wise operations directly: | | >>> orig_data &= 0x1F | TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for &=: 'bytes' and 'int' This sort of broadcast behavior seems like numpy territory to me. Or better for a buffer subclass. Write it first in Python, using loops like above (partly for documentation and other implementations), then in C when interest and usage warrents. | >>> orig_data &= b"\x1F" | TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for &=: 'bytes' and 'bytes' Ugh is my response. Stick with the first ;-). Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
