[Python-Dev] str with base

[Steve Holden]

Adam Olsen wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Adam Olsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 1/17/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1/17/06, Adam Olsen <rhamph at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In-favour-of-%2b-ly y'rs,
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
> 
I suppose we'd better reserve "%q" for 'quirky types we just invented', 
too? ;-)

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden       +44 150 684 7255  +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC                     www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006                  www.python.org/pycon/