On Jul 6, 2016 2:40 PM, "Michael Selik"
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:30 PM Ethan Furman
wrote: On 06/07/2016 12:57 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
If someone wanted to take that PEP and drive it through to resolution, I'd be happy to hand it over (my recollection is that the sticking point in the previous discussion was the proposed constructor changes, so dropping those may make it easier to get the additional method accepted).
Split new thread to resolve that PEP.
What's the status of this PEP? Does anyone dislike the suggestion of adding an iterbytes method?
I ran into this annoyance again yesterday. The natural way to ensure that all bytes in a bytes object are a particular value (in this case b'z') is:
all(byte == b'z' for byte in bytestring)
It reads like natural language. Using ``ord`` would work in Python3, but
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0467/#addition-of-optimised-iterator-met... then my code would not be Python2-compatible. And it'd uselessly repeat the call to ord a bunch of times.
all(byte == ord(b'z') for byte in bytestring)
Instead it seems the best way given the current behavior is to write:
len(bytestring) == bytestring.count(b'z')
While I wait for PEP 467, can anyone suggest a better way to write that?
How about set(bytestring) == set(b'z')