On 01/14/2014 02:17 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014 07:36, "Ethan Furman" <et...@stoneleaf.us
<mailto:et...@stoneleaf.us>> wrote:
On 01/14/2014 12:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:56:25 -0800
Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us <mailto:et...@stoneleaf.us>> wrote:
%s, because it is the most general, has the most convoluted resolution:
- input type is bytes?
pass it straight through
It should try to get a Py_buffer instead.
Meaning any bytes or bytes-subtype will support the Py_buffer protocol, and
this should be the first thing we try?
Sounds good.
For that matter, should the first test be "does this object support Py_buffer"
and not worry about it being isinstance(obj, bytes)?
Yep. I actually suggest adjusting the %s handling to:
- interpolate Py_buffer exporters directly
- interpolate __bytes__ if defined
- reject anything with an "encode" method
- otherwise interpolate str(obj).encode("ascii")
- input type is numeric?
use its __xxx__ [1] [2] method and ascii-encode it (strictly)
What is the definition of "numeric"?
That is a key question.
As suggested above, I would flip the question and explicitly *disallow*
implicit encoding of any object with its own
"encode" method, while allowing everything else.
Um, int and floats (for example) don't have an .encode method, don't export Py_buffer, don't have a __bytes__ method...
Ah! so it would hit the last case, I see.
The danger I see with that route is that any ol' object could then make it into the byte stream, and considering what
byte streams are for I think we should make the barrier for entry higher than just relying on a __str__ or __repr__.
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
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
