Hello again. I submitted two patches to resolve the issues from my first post.
Patch 9951 - implement bytes.hex (http://bugs.python.org/issue9951) Patch 9996 - fix input and output of binascii functions ( http://bugs.python.org/issue9996) Fix #1 - patch 9951 implements bytes.hex Fix #2 - this is not fixed for now, no deprecation Fix #3 - this is not fixed for now. I will probably submit another patch if patch 9996 is accepted (create shared conversion functions to be used by both binascii and bytes, maybe) Fix #4 - patch 9996 makes binascii behave correctly in this conversion Fix #5 - same as #4 (strict input and output) As you can see, patch 9996 was rejected and I was referred to this mailing list to continue the discussion. I would like to hear your thoughts about the backward compatibility issue in patch 9996, and getting patch 9951 commited. Thanks. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Ender Wiggin <wiggi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry for the late reply. I would really like to see this fixed. > > > >>> Or we [...] deprecate binascii.(un)hexlify(). > > ... > >>> binascii is the legacy approach here, so if anything was to go, those > >>> functions would be it > > ... > > > > I'm not entirely convinced binascii is the legacy approach. What makes > this > > module "legacy"? > > Because the binascii functions predate the bytes type, and we added > the bytes methods knowing full well that the hexlify/unhexlify > functions already existed. > > > On the contrary, I'm pretty sure modularity is better than sticking all > the > > functionality in the core. > > As was written in this issue: > > http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/tracker/issue3532 > > "If you wanted to produce base-85 (say), then you can extend the > > functionality of bytes by providing a > > function that does that, whereas you can't extend the existing bytes > type." > > This example shows that "hex" is actually getting a special treatment by > > having builtin methods associated > > with the bytes type. Why don't we add ".base64" methods? Or even ".zlib"? > > After all, these options were present > > in Python 2.x using the "encode" method of string. In my opinion, having > > modules to deal with these types of > > conversions is better, and this is why I suggested sticking to binascii. > > This *is* a matter of opinion, but python-dev's collective opinion was > already expressed in the decision to include these methods in the > bytes API. > > Base 16 *is* given special treatment by many parts of Python, > precisely because it *is* special: it's the most convenient way to > express binary numbers in a vaguely human readable format. > > No other coding even comes close to that level of importance in > computer science. > > > If no one else is willing to do it (that would be a > > little disappoiting) > > Why would it be disappointing? While it's untidy, nothing's actually > broken and there are ways for programmers to do everything they want > to do. I (and many others here) already have a pretty long list of > "things I'd like to improve/fix but haven't got around to yet", so it > isn't uncommon for things to have to wait awhile before someone looks > at them. > > As Terry said though, there *are* ways to expedite that process (In > this case, providing a patch that adds a .hex method in accordance > with PEP 358, or, as a more ambitious, extensible alternative, > consider updating the hex builtin to support the PEP 3118 API, which > would allow it to automatically provide a hex dump of any object that > exposes a view of a contiguous sequence of data bytes). > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >
_______________________________________________ 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