-----Original Message----- From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+tritium- firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Nick Coghlan Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 5:40 PM To: Barry Warsaw email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements to bytes, bytearray, and memoryview
On 7 June 2016 at 14:31, Barry Warsaw email@example.com wrote:
On Jun 07, 2016, at 01:28 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
- Add ``bytes.iterbytes``, ``bytearray.iterbytes`` and ``memoryview.iterbytes`` alternative iterators
+1 but I want to go just a little farther.
We can't change bytes.__getitem__ but we can add another method that
single byte objects? I think it's still a bit of a pain to extract
bytes even with .iterbytes().
Maybe .iterbytes can take a single index argument (blech) or add a
.byte_at(i). I'll let you bikeshed on the name.
while it might not be... ideal... to create a sliceable live view object, we can have a method that accepts a slice, even if we have to create it manually (or at least make it convenient for those who wish to wrap a bytes object in their own type and blindly pass the first-non-self arg of a custom __getitem__ to the method).
The rationale for "Why not a live view?" is that an iterator is simple to define and implement, while we know from experience with memoryview and the various dict views that live views are a minefield for folks defining new container types. Since this PEP would in some sense change what it means to implement a full "bytes-like object", it's worth keeping implementation complexity in mind.
-- Nick Coghlan | firstname.lastname@example.org | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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/tritium- list%40sdamon.com