Speaking from the protocol encoding/decoding view, and one where a buffer is very similar to a list of small integers...
>> Also what about .replace() and .translate()? > >> If they are not done in place should they return a new buffer (PyBytes_) >> object or a bytes (PyString_) object? [i'd say a buffer (PyBytes_)] > > They should return the same type as 'self'. My preference would be to do the work in place and return None, just like sorting a list, reversing a list, appending to a list, etc. >> Alos if not, should we add additional .ireplace() .ilower() etc.. methods to >> the mutable buffer (PyBytes_)? There are speed advantages to doing many of >> those in place rather than a data copy. > > I'm not sure I see the use case where this matters all that much > though. Let's say not, if only because it's not in the PEP. ;-) I would appreciate it if these functions were list-like and not tuple-like. In extending buffers to support more structure encoding and decoding functions, it would be nice to carry the expectation that these extensions mutate the buffer and I can leverage the built-in functionality to do that. I am but a small voice in the chorus. Joel _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
