On 25/02/2014 08:07, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
What is wrong by design will always stay wrong by design.
Why are you making the statement that PEP 461 is wrong by design?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawre
Le mardi 25 février 2014 00:55:36 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
>
>
>
> However, you don't really want to be adding large numbers of byte strings
>
> together, due to efficiency. Better to use % interpolation to insert them
>
> all at once. Hence the push to add % to bytes in Python 3.
>
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:10:53 -0800, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 03:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Will b'%s' take any arbitrary object, as in:
>>
>> b'Key: %s' % [1, 2, 3, 4]
>> => b'Key: [1, 2, 3, 4]'
>
> No.
Very glad to hear it.
[...]
>>> Can anybody think of a use-case for this
On 02/24/2014 03:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:54:54 -0800, Ethan Furman wrote:
Greetings!
A PEP is under discussion to add %-interpolation back to the bytes type
in Python 3.5.
Assuming the PEP is accepted, what *will* be added back is:
Numerics:
b'%d' % 10 -->
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:18:53 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> random...@fastmail.us:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 15:46, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> That is:
>>>
>>> 1. ineffient (encode/decode shuffle)
>>>
>>> 2. unnatural (strings usually have no place in protocols)
>>
>> That's not at all cle
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:54:54 -0800, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> A PEP is under discussion to add %-interpolation back to the bytes type
> in Python 3.5.
>
> Assuming the PEP is accepted, what *will* be added back is:
>
> Numerics:
>
>b'%d' % 10 --> b'10'
>b'%02x' % 10 --> b'
On 02/24/2014 01:04 PM, random...@fastmail.us wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 15:46, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
That is:
1. ineffient (encode/decode shuffle)
2. unnatural (strings usually have no place in protocols)
That's not at all clear. Why _aren't_ these protocols considered text
protoco
random...@fastmail.us:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 15:46, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> That is:
>>
>> 1. ineffient (encode/decode shuffle)
>>
>> 2. unnatural (strings usually have no place in protocols)
>
> That's not at all clear. Why _aren't_ these protocols considered text
> protocols? Why can't
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 15:46, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> That is:
>
> 1. ineffient (encode/decode shuffle)
>
> 2. unnatural (strings usually have no place in protocols)
That's not at all clear. Why _aren't_ these protocols considered text
protocols? Why can't you add a string directly to header
Ethan Furman :
> Can anybody think of a use-case for this particular feature?
Internet protocol entities constantly have to format (and parse)
ASCII-esque octet strings:
headers.append(b'Content-length: %d\r\n' % len(blob))
headers.append(b'Content-length: {}\r\n'.format(len(blob)))
No
Greetings!
A PEP is under discussion to add %-interpolation back to the bytes type in
Python 3.5.
Assuming the PEP is accepted, what *will* be added back is:
Numerics:
b'%d' % 10 --> b'10'
b'%02x' % 10 --> b'0a'
Single byte:
b'%c' % 80 --> b'P'
and generic:
b'%s' % some_binary_
11 matches
Mail list logo
