Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > Well, we should still write a Python documentation, not a NumPy > > documentation (on this tracker anyway). Outside of NumPy, there's little > > use for multi-dimensional objects. > > Ok, but people should not be surprised if their (Python) array.array() of > double or their array of ctypes structs is silently accepted by some byte > consuming function.
Probably. My own (humble :-)) opinion is that array.array() is a historical artifact, and its use doesn't seem to be warranted in modern Python code. ctypes is obviously a very special library, and not for the faint of heart. > How about "object does not provide a byte buffer" for error messages > and "(byte) buffer provider" as a shorthand for "any buffer provider > that exposes its memory as a sequence of unsigned bytes in response > to a PyBUF_SIMPLE request"? It's not too bad, I think. However, what I think is important is that the average (non-expert) Python developer understand that the function really accepts a bytes object, and other similar types (because, really, bytes is the only bytes-like type most developers will ever face). That's why I'm proposing "bytes-like object". ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16518> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com