On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> > wrote: > > > > This is why I see no downside to latin-1 -- if you don't use the > 127 > code > > points, it's the same thing -- if you do, you get some extra handy > > characters. The only difference is that a proper ascii type would not let > > you store anything above 127 at all -- why restrict ourselves? > > IMO the extra characters aren't the most compelling argument for > latin1 over ascii. Latin1 gives the nice assurance that if some jerk > *does* give me an "ascii" file that somewhere has some byte with the > 8th bit set, then I can still load the data and fix things by hand. > This is trickier if numpy just refuses to touch the data, blowing up > with an exception when I try. In general it's easy to create numpy > arrays containing arbitrary bitpatterns, so it's nice to have some > strategy for what to do with them. > > Just to throw in one more complication, there is no buffer protocol for a fixed encoding type. In Python 3 'c', 's', 'p' are all considered as bytes, in Python 2 as strings. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion