On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 08:14:50AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 08May2019 00:18, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > >Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>That suggests a possible pair of constructors: > >> bytes.from_int(n) -> equivalent to b'%d' % n > >> bytes.ord(n) -> equivalent to bytes((n,)) > > > >I don't see how bytes.from_int(n) is any clearer about what it > >does than just bytes(n). If we're going to have named constructors, > >the names should indicate *how* the construction is being done, > >not just repeat the type of the argument. > > How about from_size(n) and from_ord(n)? The former to make a NUL filled > bytes of size n, the latter to make a single byte bytes with element 0 > having value n.
We already have from_size, it's just spelled bytes(n). I don't dislike from_ord as a name, although perhaps it ought to be fromord to match fromhex. > Preemptively one could argue for from_size having an optional fill > value, default 0. I think I'm -0 on that because I can't imagine a > likely use case and it would slightly slow down every use. Wanting to fill a bytes object with something other than zeroes is probably uncommon. But for those who need it '\xFF'*n should do the job. > I think I'd > argue for a from_iter instead, to support an arbitrary fill > pattern/sequence. We already have that, its spelled bytes(iterable). py> bytes(range(5)) b'\x00\x01\x02\x03\x04' -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
