On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Seems to make sense. Do you see many places where it w
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Seems to make sense. Do you see many places where it would make
>> existing code shorter?
> If it could be used to get the bytes from a file o
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to make sense. Do you see many places where it would make
> existing code shorter?
>
If it could be used to get the bytes from a file object, then
marshal.c could use it; the code calls the "read" method on file
o
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Seems to make sense. Do you see many places where it would make
>> existing code shorter?
>
> It's a good way to convert a bytearray to by
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to make sense. Do you see many places where it would make
> existing code shorter?
It's a good way to convert a bytearray to bytes.
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1."
_
Seems to make sense. Do you see many places where it would make
existing code shorter?
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems PyBytes is missing the parallel call for
> PyByteArray_FromObject. Should I add it?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: ht
