On 01/-10/-28163 01:59 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
Evan Driscoll wrote:
People like you -- who write to assumptions which are not even remotely
guaranteed by the spec -- are part of the reason software sucks.
...
This email is a bit harsher than it deserves -- but I feel not by much.
I don't see
Chris Angelico wrote:
>Actually, he is justified. It's one thing to work in C or assembly and
>write code that depends on certain bit-pattern representations of data
>(although even that causes trouble - assuming that
>sizeof(int)=3D=3Dsizeof(int*) isn't good for portability), but in a high
>leve
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Evan Driscoll wrote:
>>People like you -- who write to assumptions which are not even remotely
>>guaranteed by the spec -- are part of the reason software sucks.
> ...
>>This email is a bit harsher than it deserves -- but I feel not by much.
>
Evan Driscoll wrote:
>People like you -- who write to assumptions which are not even remotely
>guaranteed by the spec -- are part of the reason software sucks.
...
>This email is a bit harsher than it deserves -- but I feel not by much.
I don't see how you could feel the least bit justified. We
On 3/28/2012 14:43, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Evan Driscoll wrote:
>> So yes, you can say that pretending there's not a mapping of strings to
>> internal representation is silly, because there is. However, there's
>> nothing you can say about that mapping.
>
> I'm not the one labeling anything as be
Evan Driscoll wrote:
>So yes, you can say that pretending there's not a mapping of strings to
>internal representation is silly, because there is. However, there's
>nothing you can say about that mapping.
I'm not the one labeling anything as being silly. I'm the one labeling
the things as bul
On 01/-10/-28163 01:59 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The right way to convert bytes to strings, and vice versa, is via
encoding and decoding operations.
If you want to dictate to the original poster the correct way to do
things then you don't need to do anything more that. You
