Adam Olsen wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Adam Olsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 1/17/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1/17/06, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In-favour-of-%2b-ly y'rs,
>>>>>
>>>>>My only opposition to this is that the byte type may want to use it.
>>>>>I'd rather wait until byte is fully defined, implemented, and
>>>>>released
>>>>>in a python version before that option is taken away.
>>>>
>>>>Has this been proposed? What would %b print?
>>>
>>>I don't believe it's been proposed and I don't know what it'd print.
>>>Perhaps it indicates the bytes should be passed through without
>>>conversion.
>>
>>That doesn't make any sense. What is "without conversion"? Does
>>that mean UTF-8, UCS-2, UCS-4, latin-1, Shift-JIS? You can't have
>>unicode without some kind of conversion.
>>
>>
>>>In any case I only advocate waiting until it's clear that bytes have
>>>no need for it before we use it for binary conversions.
>>
>>I don't see what business a byte type has mingling with string
>>formatters other than the normal str and repr coercions via %s and %r
>>respectively.
>
>
> Is the byte type intended to be involved in string formatters at all?
> Does byte("%i") % 3 have the obvious effect, or is it an error?
>
> Although upon further consideration I don't see any case where %s and
> %b would have different effects.. *shrug* I never said it did have a
> purpose, just that it *might* be given a purpose when byte was spec'd
> out.
>
I suppose we'd better reserve "%q" for 'quirky types we just invented',
too? ;-)
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
