On 16 August 2014 03:48, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > This feels chatty. I'd like the PEP to call out the specific proposals and > put the more verbose motivation later.
I realised that some of that history was actually completely irrelevant now, so I culled a fair bit of it entirely. > It took me a long time to realize > that you don't want to deprecate bytes([1, 2, 3]), but only bytes(3). I've split out the four subproposals into their own sections, so hopefully this is clearer now. > Also > your mention of bytes.byte() as the counterpart to ord() confused me -- I > think it's more similar to chr(). This was just a case of me using the wrong word - I meant "inverse" rather than "counterpart". > I don't like iterbytes as a builtin, let's > keep it as a method on affected types. Done. I also added an explanation of the benefits it offers over the more generic "map(bytes.byte, data)", as well as more precise semantics for how it will work with memoryview objects. New draft is live at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0467/, as well as being included inline below. Regards, Nick. =================================== PEP: 467 Title: Minor API improvements for bytes and bytearray Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 2014-03-30 Python-Version: 3.5 Post-History: 2014-03-30 2014-08-15 2014-08-16 Abstract ======== During the initial development of the Python 3 language specification, the core ``bytes`` type for arbitrary binary data started as the mutable type that is now referred to as ``bytearray``. Other aspects of operating in the binary domain in Python have also evolved over the course of the Python 3 series. This PEP proposes four small adjustments to the APIs of the ``bytes``, ``bytearray`` and ``memoryview`` types to make it easier to operate entirely in the binary domain: * Deprecate passing single integer values to ``bytes`` and ``bytearray`` * Add ``bytes.zeros`` and ``bytearray.zeros`` alternative constructors * Add ``bytes.byte`` and ``bytearray.byte`` alternative constructors * Add ``bytes.iterbytes``, ``bytearray.iterbytes`` and ``memoryview.iterbytes`` alternative iterators Proposals ========= Deprecation of current "zero-initialised sequence" behaviour ------------------------------------------------------------ Currently, the ``bytes`` and ``bytearray`` constructors accept an integer argument and interpret it as meaning to create a zero-initialised sequence of the given size:: >>> bytes(3) b'\x00\x00\x00' >>> bytearray(3) bytearray(b'\x00\x00\x00') This PEP proposes to deprecate that behaviour in Python 3.5, and remove it entirely in Python 3.6. No other changes are proposed to the existing constructors. Addition of explicit "zero-initialised sequence" constructors ------------------------------------------------------------- To replace the deprecated behaviour, this PEP proposes the addition of an explicit ``zeros`` alternative constructor as a class method on both ``bytes`` and ``bytearray``:: >>> bytes.zeros(3) b'\x00\x00\x00' >>> bytearray.zeros(3) bytearray(b'\x00\x00\x00') It will behave just as the current constructors behave when passed a single integer. The specific choice of ``zeros`` as the alternative constructor name is taken from the corresponding initialisation function in NumPy (although, as these are 1-dimensional sequence types rather than N-dimensional matrices, the constructors take a length as input rather than a shape tuple) Addition of explicit "single byte" constructors ----------------------------------------------- As binary counterparts to the text ``chr`` function, this PEP proposes the addition of an explicit ``byte`` alternative constructor as a class method on both ``bytes`` and ``bytearray``:: >>> bytes.byte(3) b'\x03' >>> bytearray.byte(3) bytearray(b'\x03') These methods will only accept integers in the range 0 to 255 (inclusive):: >>> bytes.byte(512) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> ValueError: bytes must be in range(0, 256) >>> bytes.byte(1.0) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: 'float' object cannot be interpreted as an integer The documentation of the ``ord`` builtin will be updated to explicitly note that ``bytes.byte`` is the inverse operation for binary data, while ``chr`` is the inverse operation for text data. Behaviourally, ``bytes.byte(x)`` will be equivalent to the current ``bytes([x])`` (and similarly for ``bytearray``). The new spelling is expected to be easier to discover and easier to read (especially when used in conjunction with indexing operations on binary sequence types). As a separate method, the new spelling will also work better with higher order functions like ``map``. Addition of optimised iterator methods that produce ``bytes`` objects --------------------------------------------------------------------- This PEP proposes that ``bytes``, ``bytearray`` and ``memoryview`` gain an optimised ``iterbytes`` method that produces length 1 ``bytes`` objects rather than integers:: for x in data.iterbytes(): # x is a length 1 ``bytes`` object, rather than an integer The method can be used with arbitrary buffer exporting objects by wrapping them in a ``memoryview`` instance first:: for x in memoryview(data).iterbytes(): # x is a length 1 ``bytes`` object, rather than an integer For ``memoryview``, the semantics of ``iterbytes()`` are defined such that:: memview.tobytes() == b''.join(memview.iterbytes()) This allows the raw bytes of the memory view to be iterated over without needing to make a copy, regardless of the defined shape and format. The main advantage this method offers over the ``map(bytes.byte, data)`` approach is that it is guaranteed *not* to fail midstream with a ``ValueError`` or ``TypeError``. By contrast, when using the ``map`` based approach, the type and value of the individual items in the iterable are only checked as they are retrieved and passed through the ``bytes.byte`` constructor. Design discussion ================= Why not rely on sequence repetition to create zero-initialised sequences? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zero-initialised sequences can be created via sequence repetition:: >>> b'\x00' * 3 b'\x00\x00\x00' >>> bytearray(b'\x00') * 3 bytearray(b'\x00\x00\x00') However, this was also the case when the ``bytearray`` type was originally designed, and the decision was made to add explicit support for it in the type constructor. The immutable ``bytes`` type then inherited that feature when it was introduced in PEP 3137. This PEP isn't revisiting that original design decision, just changing the spelling as users sometimes find the current behaviour of the binary sequence constructors surprising. In particular, there's a reasonable case to be made that ``bytes(x)`` (where ``x`` is an integer) should behave like the ``bytes.byte(x)`` proposal in this PEP. Providing both behaviours as separate class methods avoids that ambiguity. References ========== .. [1] Initial March 2014 discussion thread on python-ideas (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-March/027295.html) .. [2] Guido's initial feedback in that thread (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-March/027376.html) .. [3] Issue proposing moving zero-initialised sequences to a dedicated API (http://bugs.python.org/issue20895) .. [4] Issue proposing to use calloc() for zero-initialised binary sequences (http://bugs.python.org/issue21644) .. [5] August 2014 discussion thread on python-dev (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-March/027295.html) -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
