Hi, On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:24:50 +0100 Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The PEP is a draft with open questions. First, I'm not sure that both > bytes%args and bytes.format(args) are needed. The implementation of > .format() is more complex, so why not only adding bytes%args?
I think we must either implement both or none of them. > Then, > the following points must be decided to define the complete list of > supported features (formatters): > > * Format integer to hexadecimal? ``%x`` and ``%X`` > * Format integer to octal? ``%o`` > * Format integer to binary? ``{!b}`` > * Alignment? > * Truncating? Truncate or raise an error? Not desirable IMHO. bytes formatting should serve mainly for templating situations (i.e. catenate and insert bytestrings into one another). We cannot start giving text-like semantics to bytes objects without confusing non-experts. > * format keywords? ``b'{arg}'.format(arg=5)`` > * ``str % dict`` ? ``b'%(arg)s' % {'arg': 5)`` Yes, bytes formatting must support the same calling conventions as str formatting. BTW, there's a subtlety here: ``%s`` currently means "insert the result of calling __str__", but bytes formatting should *not* call __str__. > * Floating point number? > * ``%i``, ``%u`` and ``%d`` formats for integer numbers? > * Signed number? ``%+i`` and ``%-i`` No, IMHO. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com