> I think this method is easy to miss, since people look at the docs for bytes
> (e.g. using dir(bytes)). It might be worthwhile to either add a
> `bytes.to_int(...)` method (better, IMHO), or to point to int.from_bytes on
> the relevant part of the docs.
>
> Elazar
A note in the docs about int.fr
I think this method is easy to miss, since people look at the docs for
bytes (e.g. using dir(bytes)). It might be worthwhile to either add a
`bytes.to_int(...)` method (better, IMHO), or to point to int.from_bytes on
the relevant part of the docs.
Elazar
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:09 PM Ken Hilton
Whoops! Never seen that before. Nothing I searched up pointed me to it.
Sorry for wasting your time!
Ken;
--
Sincerely,
Ken;
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: htt
On 1 May 2018 at 21:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 19:22:52 +0800
> Ken Hilton wrote:
> >
> > So I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with how the "bytes" object
> > works in Python 3. It acts mostly like a string, with the exception that
> > 0-dimensional subs
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 07:22:52PM +0800, Ken Hilton wrote:
> The only way to get 493182234161465432041076 out of b'hovercraft'
You seem to be using a bytes object as a base-256 number. Under what
circumstances is this desirable?
> in a single expression is as follows:
What's so special about
Hi Ken,
On Tue, 1 May 2018 19:22:52 +0800
Ken Hilton wrote:
>
> So I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with how the "bytes" object
> works in Python 3. It acts mostly like a string, with the exception that
> 0-dimensional subscripting (var[idx]) returns an integer, not a bytes
> object -
