On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
The byte scalar is an int in range(256). Bytes is an array of such.
then why the complaint about iterating over bytes producing ints? Ye,s a byte owuld be pretty much teh same as an int, but it would have restrictions - useful ones. numpy has a scalar type for every type it supports -- this is a GOOD
THING (tm): In [56]: type(a[1]) Out[56]: numpy.uint8
In [57]: a[1].shape Out[57]: ()
The lack of a character type is a major source of "type errors" in python (the whole list of strings vs a single string problem -- both return a sequence when you index into them or iterate over them)
This is exactly what iterbytes would do -- yields bytes of size 1.
as I understand it, it would yield a bytes object of length one -- that is a sequence that _happens_ to only have one item in it -- not the same thing. Note above. In numpy, when you index out of a 1-d array you get a scalar -- with shape == () -- not a 1-d array of length 1. And this is useful, as it provide s clear termination point when you drill down through multiple dimensions. I often wish I could do that with nested lists with strings at the bottom. [1,2,3] is a sequence of numbers "this" is a sequence of characters -- oops, not it's not, it's a sequence of sequences of sequences of ... I think it would be cleaner if bytes was a sequence of a scalar byte object. This is a bigger deal for numpy, what with its n-dimensional arrays and many reducing operations, but the same principles apply. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov