On 14 January 2014 16:04, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I've now looked at asciistr. (Thanks Glenn and Ethan for the link.)
>
> Now that I (hopefully) understand it, I'm worried that a text
> processing algorithm that uses asciistr might under ha
On 1/13/2014 10:16 PM, MRAB wrote:
On 2014-01-14 03:03, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:48 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
And now for something completely different.
My root buildbot is finally now able to telnet out and get "Connection
refused" errors. (For the curious, the VirtualBox "NAT" mode
On 1/13/2014 9:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
since this observation makes it clear that there's*no* coherent way
to offer a pure binary interpolation API - the only general purpose
combination mechanism for segments of binary data that can avoid
making assumptions about the encodings of metacharact
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 14 January 2014 15:15, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> The purity position is probably going to lose in the end, since Guido
>> is clearly in the PBP camp at this point, and that's a strong
>> indicator (especially since Nick has given up on
On 1/13/2014 8:58 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 1/13/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Glenn Linderman writes:
>>> "smuggled binary" (great term borrowed from a different
>>> subthread) muddies the waters of what you are dealing with.
>> Not rea
On 01/13/2014 09:12 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
In contrast, here's the tests I drew up for what I thought bytes should do for
us (no code, just tests):
https://bitbucket.org/stoneleaf/bytestring
Ugh. Ignore for now, I need to update them to re
On 14 January 2014 15:15, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> The purity position is probably going to lose in the end, since Guido
> is clearly in the PBP camp at this point, and that's a strong
> indicator (especially since Nick has given up on convincing
> python-dev). But that does not mean it's ent
On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
In contrast, here's the tests I drew up for what I thought bytes should do for
us (no code, just tests):
https://bitbucket.org/stoneleaf/bytestring
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@p
On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Sorry to butt in, but can you post a link to the asciistr code? Google
has too many hits for other things to be useful to find it, it seems.
https://github.com/jeamland/asciicompat
--
~Ethan~
___
Pytho
On 14 January 2014 15:03, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I don't think it's that easy. Just searching for '{' is enough to
> break in surprising ways unless the format string is encoded in an
> ASCII superset. I can think of two easy examples to illustrate this
> (they're similar to the example I poste
On 1/13/2014 9:03 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Of course, nobody in their right mind would use a format string
containing UTF-16 or EBCDIC. And that is precisely my point. When
you're using a format string, all of the format string (not just the
part between { and }) had better use ASCII or an ASC
On 1/13/2014 9:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Sorry to butt in, but can you post a link to the asciistr code? Google
has too many hits for other things to be useful to find it, it seems.
https://github.com/jeamland/asciicompat
___
Python-Dev mailing l
Greg Ewing writes:
> I don't think of my viewpoint as being PBP. That term
> assumes there is purity there to be beaten. To my mind,
> any notion of purity with respect to bytes objects
> went out the window as soon as it was given a pile
> of text methods -- together with a text-like literal
Sorry to butt in, but can you post a link to the asciistr code? Google
has too many hits for other things to be useful to find it, it seems.
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 4:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> I will doggedly keep posting to this thread rather than creating more
>> threads.
>
> Please permit to to doggedly keep pointing you toward the possible solution
> I posted on the tracker last
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 1/13/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Glenn Linderman writes:
>>> "smuggled binary" (great term borrowed from a different
>>> subthread) muddies the waters of what you are dealing with.
>> Not really. The "mud" is one or more of the serious deficiencie
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:16 PM, MRAB wrote:
> Alternatively:
>
> g = max(self.saved_groups, [1])
>
> or even:
>
> g = max(self.saved_groups or [1])
Patch created and tracker issue opened. I've used something similar to
MRAB's idea as it looks compact. Thanks all!
http://bugs.python.org/issue202
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014, at 05:38 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Has anyone actually used __bytes__ yet? What for?
In the stdlib itself:
email.message
wsgiref
pathlib
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 7:48 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> ValueError: max() arg is an empty sequence
>
>
> try:
>
> g = max(self.saved_groups) + 1
> except ValueError:
> g = 1
>
>
> Unless someone says that it is a bug for posix.getgroups to return
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Zachary Ware
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> And secondly, how can I run the tests manually? I can't find a binary
>> inside the buildarea tree. Does it get deleted afterward?
>
> Yes, that's the 'clean' step of the buildbot buil
On 2014-01-14 03:03, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:48 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
And now for something completely different.
My root buildbot is finally now able to telnet out and get "Connection
refused" errors. (For the curious, the VirtualBox "NAT" mode doesn't
work properly, but the new
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> And secondly, how can I run the tests manually? I can't find a binary
> inside the buildarea tree. Does it get deleted afterward?
Yes, that's the 'clean' step of the buildbot build process. I'd
suggest making another clone elsewhere (you c
On 1/13/2014 7:48 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
And now for something completely different.
My root buildbot is finally now able to telnet out and get "Connection
refused" errors. (For the curious, the VirtualBox "NAT" mode doesn't
work properly, but the new "NAT Network" mode does. Why? I have no
i
On 2014-01-14 02:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/13/2014 4:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I will doggedly keep posting to this thread rather than creating more
threads.
Please permit to to doggedly keep pointing you toward the possible
solution I posted on the tracker last October.
But format
On 1/13/2014 5:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I have been going on the assumption that bytes.format() would change what
'{}' meant for itself and would only interpolate bytes. That convenient
between Python 2 and 3 since it represents what we
Has anyone actually used __bytes__ yet? What for?
--
~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.c
On 1/13/2014 4:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I will doggedly keep posting to this thread rather than creating more
threads.
Please permit to to doggedly keep pointing you toward the possible
solution I posted on the tracker last October.
But formatb() feels absurd to me. PEP 460 has nei
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 07:58:43PM -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> This discussion strikes me as more appropriate for python-ideas. That
> said, I am leery of a heuristics module in the stdlib. When is a change
> a 'bug fix'? and when is it an 'enhancement'?
Depends on the nature of the heuristic.
On 1/13/2014 4:06 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
of text methods -- together with a text-like literal
syntax and default repr(), even though at least half
the time they're completely inappropriate!
Better said as 'half the time they're coincidentally helpful!'
My $.01 :)
Emile
__
On 2014-01-13 21:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Terminology. Let's use the official terminology rather than making stuff up.
The docs at http://docs.python.org/3/library/string.html#formatspec
use the following terminology:
Replacement field: {...}; contains field name, conversion, format spec
in
On 1/13/2014 7:06 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
Agreed. But "most programs will need it, and people will either
include (the same) 3rd-party library themselves, or write their
own workaround, or have buggy code" *is* sufficient.
Well, no, th
On 1/13/2014 3:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I personally would not add 'bytes % whatever'.
Personally, neither would I; just focus on bytes.format() and let % operator
on strings slow
And now for something completely different.
My root buildbot is finally now able to telnet out and get "Connection
refused" errors. (For the curious, the VirtualBox "NAT" mode doesn't
work properly, but the new "NAT Network" mode does. Why? I have no
idea. But if anyone else is having the same pro
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Arbitrary binary data and ASCII compatible binary data are *different
things* and the only argument in favour of modelling them with a single
type is because Python 2 did it that way.
I would say that ASCII compatible binary data is a
*subset* of arbitrary binary data. As
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
>> The barrier for entry to the standard library is higher than mere
>> usefulness.
>
> Agreed. But "most programs will need it, and people will either
> include (the same) 3rd-party library themselves, or write their
> own workaround, or hav
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
PBP doesn't think it's a great idea to pass around bytes that are
implicitly some other type, but didn't mind it (or got used to it) in
Python 2, and so they're not looking at that as a problem that Python
3 can solve. They're looking at Python 3 as the problem that pr
>> So when it is time to guess [at the character encoding of a file],
>> a source of good guesses is an important battery to include.
> The barrier for entry to the standard library is higher than mere
> usefulness.
Agreed. But "most programs will need it, and people will either
include (the s
Nick Coghlan wrote:
so the latter would be less of
an attractive nuisance when writing code that needs to handle arbitrary
binary formats and can't assume ASCII compatibility.
Hang on a moment. What do you mean by code that
"handles arbitrary binary formats"?
As far as I can see, the propos
As best I can tell, some people (apparently including Guido
and PEP author Antoine) are taking some assumptions almost
for granted, while other people (including me, before Nick's
messages) were not assuming them at all.
Since these assumptions (or, possibly, rejections of them?)
are likely to d
On 1/13/2014 1:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Yeah, the %s behavior with a string argument was a messy attempt at
compromise. I was hoping to mimick a common use of %s in Python 2,
where it c
On 14 Jan 2014 04:58, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> Let me try rebooting the reboot.
>
> My interpretation of Nick's argument is that he are asking for a bytes
> formatting language that doesn't have an implicit ASCII assumption.
>
> To me this feels absurd. The formatting codes (%s, %c) themselve
On Jan 13, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> %s not accepting str is the major thing I’d personally be against.
To be more clear
b”%s” % “abc” == No
b”%s” % 123 == Fine
-
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signa
On Jan 13, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 4:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Glenn Linderman
>> wrote:
>>> If somehow (unlikely though it seems) we end up keeping %s (e.g.
>>> strictly to ease porting), we could also keep %r as an alias
On 1/13/2014 4:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Glenn Linderman
> wrote:
>> If somehow (unlikely though it seems) we end up keeping %s (e.g.
>> strictly to ease porting), we could also keep %r as an alias for %a.
>>
>>
>> %s for strictly interpolating bytes eases
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I have been going on the assumption that bytes.format() would change what
> '{}' meant for itself and would only interpolate bytes. That convenient
> between Python 2 and 3 since it represents what we want it to (str and bytes
> under the hood
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:56:44 -0800
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:32:28 -0800
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >>
> >> But formatb() feels absurd to me. PEP 460 has neither a precise
> >> specification or any actual exampl
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 01/13/2014 01:20 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2014 21:01, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think this should be for 3.5, and should not involve an accelerated
>>> release of 3.5 - we should get it into the 3.5 code early and let
>>
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Glenn Linderman
> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2014 12:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, the %s behavior with a string argument was a messy attempt at
>> compromise. I was hoping to mimick a common use of %
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Terminology. Let's use the official terminology rather than making stuff
> up.
>
> The docs at http://docs.python.org/3/library/string.html#formatspec
> use the following terminology:
>
> Replacement field: {...}; contains field name, con
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 12:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Yeah, the %s behavior with a string argument was a messy attempt at
> compromise. I was hoping to mimick a common use of %s in Python 2,
> where it can be used with either an 8-bit string o
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:32:28 -0800
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> But formatb() feels absurd to me. PEP 460 has neither a precise
>> specification or any actual examples, so I can't tell whether the
>> intention is that the format string c
On 01/13/2014 01:20 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 13/01/2014 21:01, Paul Moore wrote:
I think this should be for 3.5, and should not involve an accelerated
release of 3.5 - we should get it into the 3.5 code early and let
people thrash out the details during the 3.5 release cycle.
I disagree, i
On 14 Jan 2014 03:34, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 13 January 2014 23:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> 1) What do we need in terms of functionality
> >>
> >> Best guess, %s, %d, and %f. I've not done a full audit of the code,
but some
> >
Nick Coghlan wrote:
By allowing format characters that *do* assume ASCII, the entire
construct is rendered unsafe - you have to look inside the format
string to determine if it is assuming ASCII compatibility or not, thus
the entire construct must be deemed as assuming ASCII compatibility at
the
Terminology. Let's use the official terminology rather than making stuff up.
The docs at http://docs.python.org/3/library/string.html#formatspec
use the following terminology:
Replacement field: {...}; contains field name, conversion, format spec
in that order, all optional.
Field name: either a
On 01/13/2014 01:08 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
+1 - what Ethan said. A real death, instead death by inappropriately transformed data, is
fine by me, if b"%s" %
str(...) doesn't have the appropriate .encode(...) call. But I could live with
either.
You mean instead of death by a thousand quote
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:32:28 -0800
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> But formatb() feels absurd to me. PEP 460 has neither a precise
> specification or any actual examples, so I can't tell whether the
> intention is that the format string can *only* contain {...} sequences
> or whether it can also cont
On 1/13/2014 12:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Yeah, the %s behavior with a string argument was a messy attempt at
compromise. I was hoping to mimick a common use of %s in Python 2,
where it can be used with either an 8-bit string or a number as
argument, acting like %b in the former case and lik
I will doggedly keep posting to this thread rather than creating more threads.
In another thread, Nick has said he's okay with my proposal (not sure
if that includes %s or not, but it now seems of lesser importance) as
long as we simultaneously introduce formatb() and formatb_map() (the
latter is
Glenn Linderman wrote:
Quotes in the stream are a great debug hint, without blowing up.
But do you really want those quotes turning up in
a *binary* stream, where they're somewhere between
awkward and near-impossible to spot by eyeballing,
and may only be discovered when something else --
likel
On 13/01/2014 21:01, Paul Moore wrote:
I think this should be for 3.5, and should not involve an accelerated
release of 3.5 - we should get it into the 3.5 code early and let
people thrash out the details during the 3.5 release cycle.
I disagree, it should be on pypi now so people can start tr
On 1/13/2014 9:38 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 01/13/2014 09:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:36:05 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
You mean crash all the time? I'd be fine with that for both the str
case
and the bytes case. But's probably too late
to change the str case, and th
On 1/13/2014 10:40 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
This even gives people in-place ASCII encoding for strings by always
using '{:s}' with text which they can do when they port their code to
run under both Python 2 and 3. So you should be able to do
``b'Content-Type: {:s}'.format('image/jpeg')`` and hav
On 1/13/2014 5:06 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I figured out tonight that it's only positioning ASCII interpolation
as an*alternative* to adding binary interpolation that I have a
problem with. It isn't, because you lose the structural assurance that
you haven't inadvertently introduced an assumption
On 13 January 2014 18:58, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I hear the objections against b'%s' % 'x' returning b"'x'" loud and
> clear, and if the noise about that sub-issue is preventing folks from
> seeing the absurdity in PEP 460, we can talk about a compromise, e.g.
> use %b which would require its a
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 01/12/2014 04:47 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
b'%s' % 'x' == b"'x'" (i.e. the three-byte string containing an 'x'
enclosed in single quotes)
I'm not sure about the quotes. Would anyone ever actually want those
13.01.14 15:57, Augie Fackler написав(ла):
1) What do we need in terms of functionality
Best guess, %s, %d, and %f. I've not done a full audit of the code, but
some limited looking over the grep hits for % in .py files suggests I'm
right, and we could even do without %f (we only use that for 'hg
On 1/13/2014 1:49 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
So why not replace '%s' with '%a' for the ascii case and
with '%b' for directly inserting bytes.
Because %a and %b don't exist in Python 2.7?
I thought this was about 3.5, not 2.7 ;)
'%s' can't work in 3.5, as we must differentiate between
strings whi
[If you want to continue this discussio, please move it from python-dev to
sphinx-users. It is now completely offtopic for the former.]
Anyway, just as a short explanation, you missed the point of the change:
-M is not meant to be used directly but still via a (very short)
Makefile. This isn't b
On 1/13/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 1/12/2014 4:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Glenn Linderman writes:
>>> the proposals to embed binary in Unicode by abusing Latin-1
>>> encoding.
>> Those aren't "proposals", they are currently feasible
On 01/13/2014 12:02 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Personally, neither would I; just focus on bytes.format() and let % operator on
strings slowly go away.
Hey, now, some of us like %! ;)
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https:
That's cool, but historical heritage makes the make argument
somewhat confusing for new users. The immediate question I
can sense is "What is the difference between build and make?"
To make (this word again) the critics constructive, let me pass
some ideas about ideal user experience as I see it.
On 01/13/2014 03:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> If we have %b for strictly interpolating bytes, I'm fine with adding
> %a for calling ascii() on the argument and then interpolating the
> result after ASCII-encoding it.
>
> If somehow (unlikely though it seems) we end up keeping %s (e.g.
> strict
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On January 13, 2014 at 3:08:43 PM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>> I see it now. b"foo%sbar" % b'baz' should also expand to b"foob'foo'bar"
>>
>> Instead of "%b" could "%j" mean "I should have used + or join()
>> here
>> but was
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> I personally would not add 'bytes % whatever'.
>
> Personally, neither would I; just focus on bytes.format() and let % operator
> on strings slowly go away.
Well, % has some very strong
On January 13, 2014 at 3:08:43 PM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> I see it now. b"foo%sbar" % b'baz' should also expand to b"foob'foo'bar"
>
> Instead of "%b" could "%j" mean "I should have used + or join()
> here
> but was too lazy" and work on str too?
Isn’t this just error p
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 02:13 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>On Jan 13, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> I hear the objections against b'%s' % 'x' returning b"'x'" loud and
>>> clear, and if the noise about that sub-issue is preventi
I see it now. b"foo%sbar" % b'baz' should also expand to b"foob'foo'bar"
Instead of "%b" could "%j" mean "I should have used + or join() here
but was too lazy" and work on str too?
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 1:40 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> > So bytes for
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 1:40 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > So bytes formatting really needn't (and shouldn't, IMO) mirror str
>> > formatting.
>>
>
> This was my presumption in writing byteformat().
>
>
> I think one of the things about Guido's proposa
On Jan 13, 2014, at 02:13 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>On Jan 13, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> I hear the objections against b'%s' % 'x' returning b"'x'" loud and
>> clear, and if the noise about that sub-issue is preventing folks from
>> seeing the absurdity in PEP 460, we can t
On 1/13/2014 1:40 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> So bytes formatting really needn't (and shouldn't, IMO) mirror str
> formatting.
This was my presumption in writing byteformat().
I think one of the things about Guido's proposal that bugs me is that it
breaks the mental model of the .format() meth
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:51:32 + (UTC)
Augie Fackler wrote:
>
> (Please don't remove me from the CC list - I could only respond via gmane
> because I'm not subscribed to python-dev.)
Responding via gmane is what I do, too :-)
My NNTP client doesn't allow SMTP / NNTP mixed postings, so I'm forc
On Jan 13, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I hear the objections against b'%s' % 'x' returning b"'x'" loud and
> clear, and if the noise about that sub-issue is preventing folks from
> seeing the absurdity in PEP 460, we can talk about a compromise, e.g.
> use %b which would require
Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net> writes:
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:34:39 -0800
> Guido van Rossum python.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > On 13 January 2014 23:57, Augie Fackler durin42.com> wrote:
> > >> 1) What do we need in terms of functiona
Let me try rebooting the reboot.
My interpretation of Nick's argument is that he are asking for a bytes
formatting language that doesn't have an implicit ASCII assumption.
To me this feels absurd. The formatting codes (%s, %c) themselves are
expressed as ASCII characters. If you include anything
On 01/13/2014 09:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 14 January 2014 01:54, Ethan Furman wrote:
Forgive me for being dense, but I don't understand your objection. With
Guido's proposal, '%s' % bytes_data, bytes_data is passed through unchanged.
Did you mean something else by "binary data"?
I mean
On Jan 13, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:41:18 +0100, Antoine Pitrou
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:11:47 -0800
>>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Ethan Furman
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:41:18 +0100, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:11:47 -0800
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> > > On 01/12/2014 04:47 PM, Guido van Rossum wrot
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:36:05 -0800
> Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> > On 01/13/2014 08:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:59:10 -0800
> > > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Antoine Pitrou
>
Am 13.01.2014 18:38, schrieb Ethan Furman:
> On 01/13/2014 09:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:36:05 -0800 Ethan Furman wrote:
>>>
>>> You mean crash all the time? I'd be fine with that for both the str
>>> case and the bytes case. But's probably too late to change the str
On 01/13/2014 09:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:36:05 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
You mean crash all the time? I'd be fine with that for both the str case
and the bytes case. But's probably too late
to change the str case, and the bytes case should mirror what str does.
L
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> >> > On 13 January 2014 23:57, Augie Fackler
On January 13, 2014 at 12:45:40 PM, R. David Murray (rdmur...@bitdance.com)
wrote:
[snip]
> There is no use case in the sense you are asking, just like there
> is no
> real use case for '%s' % b'x' producing "b'x'". But the real use
> case
> is exactly the same: to let you know your code is sc
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 13 January 2014 23:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> 1) What do we need in terms of functionality
> >>
> >> Best guess, %s, %d, and %f. I've not done a full audit of the code, but
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:41:18 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:11:47 -0800
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> > > On 01/12/2014 04:47 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > >> %s seems the trickiest: I think with a bytes argument it
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:34:39 -0800
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 13 January 2014 23:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> 1) What do we need in terms of functionality
> >>
> >> Best guess, %s, %d, and %f. I've not done a full audit of the code, but
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 13 January 2014 23:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> 1) What do we need in terms of functionality
>>
>> Best guess, %s, %d, and %f. I've not done a full audit of the code, but some
>> limited looking over the grep hits for % in .py files suggest
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Augie Fackler wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> > On 13 January 2014 23:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> >> 1) What do we need in terms of functionality
>> >>
>> >> Best
On 01/13/2014 08:39 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 01/13/2014 07:49 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jan 12, 2014, at 06:11 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps not, but it's a hint that you should probably think about an
encoding. It's symmetric with how '%s' % b'x' returns "b'x'". Think of
it as paybac
On 01/13/2014 07:49 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jan 12, 2014, at 06:11 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps not, but it's a hint that you should probably think about an
encoding. It's symmetric with how '%s' % b'x' returns "b'x'". Think of
it as payback time. :-)
Which unfortunately causes no e
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
