On 1/17/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Adam Olsen wrote: > > > On 1/17/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 1/17/06, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com