On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:04, Ethan Furman ethan@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 09/16/2014 06:02 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 09/15/2014 08:43 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 09/15/2014 04:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The current suggestion on the issue tracker is to add __format__ to bytes/bytearray/memoryview with a suitable symbolic mini-language to control the formatting details.
PEP 461 specifically did not add back __format__ to bytes/bytearrays. I think a PEP is appropriate to reverse that decision.
That's different. PEP 461 excluded them because it was talking about bytes.format(). bytes.__format__() would be much easier to deal with, because its result must be unicode (str in 3.x).
I don't think just adding bytes/bytearray.__format__() per se requires a PEP. It's not a very radical addition, similar to datetime.__format__(). But I wouldn't be opposed to a PEP to decide on the specifics of the mini-language that bytes.__format__() supports.
So the difference is:
b'Hello, %s' % some_bytes_var --> b'Hello, <whatever>'
whilst
b'Hello, {}'.format(some_uni_var) --> u'Hello, <whatever>'
No, you're mixing up `format`, an explicit method on str that no one is suggesting adding to bytes, and `__format__`, a dunder method on every type that's used by `str.format` and `format`; the proposal is to extend `bytes.__format__` in some way that I don't think is entirely decided yet, but it would look something like this:
u'Hello, {:a}'.format(some_bytes_var) --> u'Hello, <whatever>'
Or:
u'Hello, {:#x}'.format(some_bytes_var) --> u'Hello, \\x2d\\x78\\x68\\x61...'
(Yes, I remember unicode == str, I was just being explicit ;)
That would certainly go along with the idea that `format` is for strings.
-- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/