On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> Compare these two calls:
>>
>> from array import array
> bytes(array('h', [1, 2, 3]))
>
b'\x01\x00\x02\x00\x03\x00'
>>
>> and
>>
>> bytes(array('f', [1, 2, 3]))
>
b'\x00\x00\x80?\x00\x00\x00@\x00\x00@@'
>>
>
> I don't
On 06.01.17 21:31, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Serhiy Storchaka mailto:storch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 05.01.17 22:37, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
2. For 3.7, I would like to see a drastically simplified bytes(x):
2.1. Accept only objects wit
On 1/6/2017 12:39 PM, André Lemos wrote:
I have a C++ module that I am compiling to use inside of my Python
installation under Mac OS.
If I compile & link it against a Framework enabled Python installation,
it works fine, but if I compile & link it against a /non/ enabled
Framework installation
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> On 05.01.17 22:37, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
>
>> I propose the following:
>>
>> 1. For 3.6, restore and document 3.5 behavior. Recommend that 3rd party
>> types that are both integer-like and buffer-like implement their own
>> __bytes_
Hi,
I have a C++ module that I am compiling to use inside of my Python
installation under Mac OS.
If I compile & link it against a Framework enabled Python installation, it
works fine, but if I compile & link it against a *non* enabled Framework
installation that we use for distribution, I simpl
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2016-12-30 - 2017-01-06)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open5685 (+22)
closed 35253 (+45)
total 40938 (+67)
Open issues wit
>> > with memoryview(x) as m:
>> > b = bytes(m)
>> > # or b = m.tobytes()
>>
>> Thinking more about this, and after looking at my own code in asyncpg
>> and uvloop, I'm now in favor of adding bytes.frombuffer() with the
>> proposed signature: ``bytes.frombuffer(byteslike, length=-1, offse
Hi Yury,
adjusted subject, since I'm dragging the discussion away from it.
On Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 20:28:26 Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On 2017-01-05 7:11 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
> >> bytes.frombuffer(x) is bytes(memoryview(x)) or memoryview(x).tobytes().
> >
> > There is pitfall: memoryview sh
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 20:28:26 -0500
Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On 2017-01-05 7:11 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
> >> bytes.frombuffer(x) is bytes(memoryview(x)) or memoryview(x).tobytes().
> >>
> > There is pitfall: memoryview should be closed.
> > So b = bytes.frombuffer(x) is:
> >
> > with memoryview(x) a
>
> Thinking more about this, and after looking at my own code in asyncpg and
> uvloop, I'm now in favor of adding bytes.frombuffer() with the proposed
> signature: ``bytes.frombuffer(byteslike, length=-1, offset=0)``
>
Do you prefer a signature proposed first?
I thought it from asyncio usage too.
I submit an issue about it.
See https://bugs.python.org/issue29178
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:38 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
>>
>> Thinking more about this, and after looking at my own code in asyncpg and
>> uvloop, I'm now in favor of adding bytes.frombuffer() with the proposed
>> signature: ``bytes.f
11 matches
Mail list logo
