On 9 Jan 2014 06:43, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Hi,
With Victor's consent, I overhauled PEP 460 and made the feature set more restricted and consistent with the bytes/str separation.
+1 I was initially dubious about the idea, but the proposed semantics look good to me. We should probably include format_map for consistency with the str API.
However, I also added bytearray into the mix, as bytearray objects should generally support the same operations as bytes (and they can be useful *especially* for network programming).
So we'd define the *format* string as mutable to get a mutable result out of the formatting operations? This seems a little weird to me. It also seems weird for a format method on a mutable type to *not* perform in-place mutation. On the other hand, I don't see another obvious way to control the output type. Cheers, Nick.
Regards
Antoine.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:24:50 +0100 Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
bytes % args and bytes.format(args) are requested by Mercurial and Twisted projects. The issue #3982 was stuck because nobody proposed a complete definition of the "new" features. Here is a try as a PEP.
The PEP is a draft with open questions. First, I'm not sure that both bytes%args and bytes.format(args) are needed. The implementation of .format() is more complex, so why not only adding bytes%args? Then, the following points must be decided to define the complete list of supported features (formatters):
_______________________________________________ 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/ncoghlan%40gmail.com