On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Gregory P. Smith krypto.org> writes:
> > >
> > > yes bytearray makes more sense to me given that its hard to read into
> an
> > immutab
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregory P. Smith krypto.org> writes:
> >
> > yes bytearray makes more sense to me given that its hard to read into an
> immutable bytes object ;)
>
> It seems to me that readinto accepts any object providing a writeabl
Gregory P. Smith krypto.org> writes:
>
> yes bytearray makes more sense to me given that its hard to read into an
immutable bytes object ;)
It seems to me that readinto accepts any object providing a writeable buffer
interface. I don't know how to express that as an annotation, though.
__
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes bytearray makes more sense to me given that its hard to read into an
> immutable bytes object ;)
Not so hard: http://bugs.python.org/issue2538
Some time ago, bytes were mutable...
--
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
__
yes bytearray makes more sense to me given that its hard to read into an
immutable bytes object ;)
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Benjamin Peterson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While working on the io module docs, I noticed the annotation for readinto
> methods is bytes. This should be bytearra
While working on the io module docs, I noticed the annotation for readinto
methods is bytes. This should be bytearray, right?
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
