Guido van Rossum wrote:
Hm, yes this seems reasonable. Travis, what do you think of this?
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would it be a good idea to make memoryview indexing consistent with
the behaviour of bytes object?
>>> memoryview(b'hello')[0]
bytearray(b'h')
>>> b'hello'[0]
104
I'm not sure that we should rush into this. There are reasons for the
differences.
The idea is that an "element" of a memory-view object be a bytes object
(either a bytearray or a bytes object depending on mutability of the
original memoryview object --- seems like it should be a bytes object in
this case).
Remember that an "element" of a memory-view object can have more than
one byte depending on the format attribute. So, I'm not sure what is
gained by special-casing the 1-byte item except possible confusion later.
Perhaps it is useful to special-case this one, but then you lose useful
mutability. My feel right now is to not do the special case at all and
actually return a memory-view object even for element access (this is
especially needed, I think for nested formats which arise in
memory-mapping files which provides some very handy io-related
functionality). Then, we should leave it to method call to extract a
bytes object as desired.
-Travis
_______________________________________________
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
