On 1/17/06, Bob Ippolito email@example.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Adam Olsen wrote:
On 1/17/06, Guido van Rossum firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 1/17/06, Adam Olsen email@example.com wrote:
My only opposition to this is that the byte type may want to use it. I'd rather wait until byte is fully defined, implemented, and released in a python version before that option is taken away.
Has this been proposed? What would %b print?
I don't believe it's been proposed and I don't know what it'd print. Perhaps it indicates the bytes should be passed through without conversion.
That doesn't make any sense. What is "without conversion"? Does that mean UTF-8, UCS-2, UCS-4, latin-1, Shift-JIS? You can't have unicode without some kind of conversion.
In any case I only advocate waiting until it's clear that bytes have no need for it before we use it for binary conversions.
I don't see what business a byte type has mingling with string formatters other than the normal str and repr coercions via %s and %r respectively.
Is the byte type intended to be involved in string formatters at all? Does byte("%i") % 3 have the obvious effect, or is it an error?
Although upon further consideration I don't see any case where %s and %b would have different effects.. *shrug* I never said it did have a purpose, just that it *might* be given a purpose when byte was spec'd out.
-- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus