21 Feb
2006
21 Feb
'06
10:23 p.m.
Greg Ewing wrote:
I don't quite see the point here. Inside a bytes object, they would be stored 1 byte per byte. Nobody is suggesting that they would take up more than that just because a_bytes_object[i] happens to return an int.
Speaking of which, I suspect it'll be a lot more common to need integer objects in the full range [0, 255] than it is now. Perhaps we should extend the pre-allocated integer objects to cover the full byte range. Tim Delaney