On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:30 PM Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:

On 06/07/2016 12:57 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0467/#addition-of-optimised-iterator-methods-that-produce-bytes-objects
>
> 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 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?