On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> The int function accepts all kinds of things e.g.
>
> >>> int('๒')
> 2
>
> However in my own code if that character ever got passed to int then
> it would definitely indicate either a bug in the code or data
> corruption
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 08:14:50AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 08May2019 00:18, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>That suggests a possible pair of constructors:
> >> bytes.from_int(n) -> equivalent to b'%d' % n
> >> bytes.ord(n) -> equivalent to bytes((n,))
> >
>
On 08May2019 00:18, Greg Ewing wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That suggests a possible pair of constructors:
bytes.from_int(n) -> equivalent to b'%d' % n
bytes.ord(n) -> equivalent to bytes((n,))
I don't see how bytes.from_int(n) is any clearer about what it
does than just
On Tue, 7 May 2019, 19:25 Chris Angelico, wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 4:17 AM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
> > Admittedly the non-ASCII unicode digit example is not one that has
> > actually caused me a problem but what I have had a problem with is
> > floats. Given that a user of my code can
One pain point in Python that constantly rears its head (at least for me)
is this:
def eat_iterable(yummy_iterable):
if isinstance(yummy_iterable, str):
raise TypeError("BLECH! Strings are ATOMIC in this context,
mmkay??")
tasty_list = list(yummy_iterable)
# digest list...
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 4:17 AM Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
> Admittedly the non-ASCII unicode digit example is not one that has
> actually caused me a problem but what I have had a problem with is
> floats. Given that a user of my code can pass in a float in place of a
> string the fact that int(1.5)
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 06:42, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> Oddly, it seems everyone in this thread thinks it would be "Better" to have a
> bunch of constructors, ratehr than the overloading, of only we didn't have
> backward compatibility to worry about.
>
> I disagree -- these efficiencies are
Serge Matveenko writes:
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 8:23 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
> >
> > Serge Matveenko writes:
> >
> > > So, I would like to propose adding a third main object called
> > > `interface` in addition to `object` and `type` and to use it to define
> > > interface
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 12:18:34AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> >That suggests a possible pair of constructors:
> >
> >bytes.from_int(n) -> equivalent to b'%d' % n
> >bytes.ord(n) -> equivalent to bytes((n,))
>
> I don't see how bytes.from_int(n) is any
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That suggests a possible pair of constructors:
bytes.from_int(n) -> equivalent to b'%d' % n
bytes.ord(n) -> equivalent to bytes((n,))
I don't see how bytes.from_int(n) is any clearer about what it
does than just bytes(n). If we're going to have named
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 12:57:49AM +, Josh Rosenberg wrote:
> bytes.ord is a bad name, given the behavior would be the opposite of ord
> (ord converts length one str to int, not int to length one str).
D'oh!
I mean, well done, that was a test and you passed!
*wink*
Sorry for the
11 matches
Mail list logo
