> Not as concisely as a one-byte struct code Help, what do you mean?
> you presumably... read... the manual ... Did I reread the wrong parts? I see I could define a ctypes.Structure since 2.5, but that would be neither concise, nor since 2.3. > when 24-bit machines become ... popular Indeed the struct's defined recently, ~1980, were contorted to make them easy to say in C, which makes them easy to say in Python, e.g.: X28Read10 = 0x28 cdb = struct.pack('>BBIBHB', X28Read10, 0, skip, 0, count, 0) But when talking the 1960's lingo I find I am actually resorting to horrors like: X12Inquiry = 0x12 xxs = [0] * 6 xxs[0] = X12Inquiry xxs[4] = allocationLength rq = ''.join([chr(xx) for xx in xxs]) Surely this is wrong? A failure on my part to think in Python? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list