Meador Inge <mead...@gmail.com> added the comment: > As a separate issue, I notice that the new 'T{}' code doesn't respect > multiplicities, e.g., as in 'H3T{HHL}'. Is that > intentional/desirable?
That could have been an oversight on my part. I don't see any immediate reason why we wouldn't allow it. > But now I've got a new open issue: how much padding should be > inserted/expected (for pack/unpack respectively) between the 'B' and > the 'T{...}' in a struct format string of the form 'BT{...}'? Doesn't that depend on what is in the '...'? For example, I would expect the same padding for 'BT{I}' and 'BI'. In general, I would expect the padding to be the same for 'x+T{y+}' and 'x+y+'. The 'T{...}'s are merely organizational, right? > I'm tempted to suggest that for native mode, changing the specifier be > disallowed entirely. I am tempted to suggest that we just go back to having one specifier at the beginning of the string :). Things seem to be getting complicate without any clear benefits. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3132> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com