Greg Ewing wrote:
> Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, NumPy also defines a data-type object which it
>> uses to describe the fundamental data-type of an array. In the context
>> of this thread it is also yet another way to describe a binary-packed
>> structure in Python.
>
> M
Giovanni Bajo:> Both ctypes and construct provide a way to describe a> binary-packed structure in Python terms: and this is an overload of> functionalityso does struct, so why not just use struct? there's a receipe at the python
cookbook that adds "naming ability" to fields, i.e.">6s.destincation
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> For what it's worth, NumPy also defines a data-type object which it
> uses to describe the fundamental data-type of an array. In the context
> of this thread it is also yet another way to describe a binary-packed
> structure in Python.
Maybe there should be a separat
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>the point is -- ctypes can define C types. not the TCP/IP stack.
>>Construct can do both. it's a superset of ctype's typing mechanism.
>>but of course both have the right to *coexist* --
>>ctypes is oriented at interop with dlls
tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the point is -- ctypes can define C types. not the TCP/IP stack.
> Construct can do both. it's a superset of ctype's typing mechanism.
> but of course both have the right to *coexist* --
> ctypes is oriented at interop with dlls, and provides the mechanism
On 4/18/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not yet too late (but the timeslot left is very small) to propose
> enhancements to ctypes. classmethods like 'from_string', 'from_buffer' or
> whatever would probably make sense.
A from_buffer classmethod would probably be good. I didn
ctypes, as the name implies, is relevant to *C data structures* only.you cannot extend it and you cannot define complex things with it, at least noteasily.
* ctypes doesn't have a way (that I'm aware of) to specify theendianness of types like c_short - so my example, when run on Windows(intel arch
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 4/17/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> after several people (several > 10) contacted me and said "IMHO 'construct'
>> is a good candidate for stdlib",
>> i thought i should give it a try. of course i'm not saying it should be
>> included right now, but in 6 month
On 4/17/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> after several people (several > 10) contacted me and said "IMHO 'construct'
> is a good candidate for stdlib",
> i thought i should give it a try. of course i'm not saying it should be
> included right now, but in 6 months time, or such a
> time
"tomer filiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>* using lambda functions for meta expressions, instead of eval(string) --
>perhaps >it's faster, but lambda is getting deprecated by python3k :(
Good news for you then: Guido's latest thought that I have read is to leave
lambda alone, as is.
Indeed, I wish I had known about this a year ago; it would have saved
me a lot of work. Of course it probably didn't exist a year ago... :(
well, yeah. many people need "parsing-abilities", but they resort to ad-hoc parsers using struct/some ad-hoc implementation of their own. there clearly is a
why include Construct?* the struct module is very nice, but very limited and non-pythonic as well
* pure python (no platform/security issues) IMHO this is a drawback. More on this below.
* lots of people need to parse and build binary data structures, it's not an esoteric library
* license: publi
hello folksafter several people (several > 10) contacted me and said "IMHO 'construct' is a good candidate for stdlib",i thought i should give it a try. of course i'm
not saying it should be included right now, but in 6 months time, or such a
timeframe (aiming at python 2.6? some 2.5.x release?)a
13 matches
Mail list logo
