[issue24892] bytes.join() won't take it's own type as the argument
R. David Murray added the comment: In case I wasn't clear: bytes-like object join's argument is *an iterable of bytes-like objects*, not an iterable of ints. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue24892 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue24892] bytes.join() won't take it's own type as the argument
R. David Murray added the comment: I said *enough* motivation. doing b'x'.join(b'anything') is a very uncommon operation (as is the equivalent string case). There is no parallel to the bytearray constructor, since that constructor does not take an iterable of byte-like objects as its input, it takes an iterable of ints, as you point out. There is no parallel to slice assignment, since a slice is by definition a bytes like object (that's why using the slice notation in the comprehension to the argument of join works). The inconsistency is entirely a consequence of the fact that if you iterate a bytes-like object you get integers. So, join's behavior is consistent with that, and as I said, *I* don't see enough motivation to make a special case exception here. Others may disagree. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue24892 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue24892] bytes.join() won't take it's own type as the argument
Brett Cannon added the comment: I agree with David. Concatenating ints to a bytes object doesn't work when you directly work with ints and bytes, and so I don't think bytes.join should special case it (Zen of Python: Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules). Thanks for the idea anyway, Timothy. -- nosy: +brett.cannon resolution: - rejected status: open - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue24892 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue24892] bytes.join() won't take it's own type as the argument
R. David Murray added the comment: I don't think there's enough motivation for making a special case here. I think this should be rejected; it's working as designed, even if not everyone agrees with the design. -- nosy: +r.david.murray ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue24892 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue24892] bytes.join() won't take it's own type as the argument
Timothy Geiser added the comment: I believe the special case has already been made: iterating over bytes-like objects returns ints. Natually, join() should take the same thing. Also, constructor bytearray(iterable_of_ints), the mutable-sequence expression ba[i:j:k] = t, and the function ba.extend(t) with t as an iterable of ints. It's the s.join(t) that's different than all these others. Again: ba = bytearray(b'barbaz') ba[0:4:2] = b'ft' ba bytearray(b'fatbaz') ba.extend(b'foo') ba bytearray(b'fatbazfoo') ba.join(b'not_this_though') Traceback (most recent call last): File pyshell#32, line 1, in module ba.join(b'not_this_though') TypeError: sequence item 0: expected a bytes-like object, int found I'll go ahead argue that it's exactly backwards as is. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue24892 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue24892] bytes.join() won't take it's own type as the argument
New submission from Timothy Geiser: You can't join bytes on another bytes object. (Everything below applies to bytearray, as well) x = b'foo' y = b'barbaz' x.join(y) Traceback (most recent call last): File pyshell#2, line 1, in module x.join(y) TypeError: sequence item 0: expected a bytes-like object, int found But this is fine for strings, and gives you exactly what you'd expect x = 'foo' y = 'barbaz' x.join(y) 'bfooafoorfoobfooafooz' y.join(x) 'fbarbazobarbazo' The best work-around I could think of was x = b'foo' y = b'barbaz' x.join(y[i:i+1] for i in range(len(y))) b'bfooafoorfoobfooafooz' y.join(x[i:i+1] for i in range(len(x))) b'fbarbazobarbazo' That just doesn't feel nearly pythonic enough, considering that the string version works as expected. I'm not even sure what the right solution here is, since the problem is that the iterator for a bytes object returns ints, not length-one bytes objects. Do we need another signature for the bytes.join method that takes byte-like objects and does what I'm describing here? -- components: Interpreter Core messages: 248799 nosy: geitda priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: bytes.join() won't take it's own type as the argument type: enhancement versions: Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue24892 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
