On 9/9/21 12:12 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2021, at 10:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> On 9/9/21 9:37 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>>> While I think int.to_bytes() is pretty obscure (I knew about it, forgot
about it, and learned
>>> about it again!) I’m not so sure it’s any less obscure than a proposed
bytes.fromint().
>>>
>>> So why don’t we just relax int.to_bytes()’s signature to include natural
default values:
>>>
>>> int.to_bytes(length=1, byteorder=sys.byteorder, *, signed=False)
>>>
>>> Then I ought to be able to just do
>>>
>>> >>> (65).to_bytes()
>>> b’A’
>>
>> That seems so much worse than
>>
>> >>> bchr(65)
>> b'A'
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Maybe, but given that you can *already* do the equivalent of bchr() with:
>
>>>> (65).to_bytes(1, sys.byteorder)
> b'A'
>
> it seems like a small stretch to make that more usable, and that would
outweigh adding a difficult
> to understand new builtin. TOOWTDI.
FWIW, bchr doesn't feel (much) like a new built-in, but more like a swap from unichr. At any rate, I know the built-in
is not going to happen.
int.to_bytes() doesn't feel like the One Obvious Way to me, and it certainly doesn't do much for readability in the
bytearray case.
Instead of `.fromord()` or `.fromint()` (or `int.to_bytes()`), my new favorite name, guaranteed not to change for at
least the rest the day, is:
bytes.chr()
bytearray.chr()
- this gets rid of the superflous b in bchr (not needed as the method is on
bytes/bytearray)
- has a nice symmetry with both the Python 3 chr(), and the answer to "where did the
Python 2 chr() go?" question
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/WJOTPVYSPLK4RX2EFO2C4XK6KJ4Y47LE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
