Nick Coghlan writes:
> sjt writes:
> > although introduction of a new format character is a poor man's
> > consistency, and this is consistency for consistency's sake. (I don't
> > have a big problem with that, though. I *like* consistency!)
>
> It's *not* a new format character, unless y
On 26 February 2014 13:57, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Nick Coghlan writes that b'%a' is
>
> > the obvious way to interpolate representations of arbitrary objects
> > into binary formats that contain ASCII compatible segments.
>
> The only argument that I have sympathy for is
>
> > %a *should*
Nick Coghlan writes that b'%a' is
> the obvious way to interpolate representations of arbitrary objects
> into binary formats that contain ASCII compatible segments.
The only argument that I have sympathy for is
> %a *should* be allowed for consistency with text interpolation
although introd
On 25 February 2014 17:43, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On 23 February 2014 08:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
>> ``%a`` will call :func:``ascii()`` on the interpolated value's
>> :func:``repr()``.
>> This is intended as a debugging aid, rather than something that should be
>> used
>> in production. Non-asc
On 23 February 2014 08:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
> ``%a`` will call :func:``ascii()`` on the interpolated value's
> :func:``repr()``.
> This is intended as a debugging aid, rather than something that should be
> used
> in production. Non-ascii values will be encoded to either ``\xnn`` or
> ``\unnn
On 02/24/2014 02:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Allowing %a also improves the consistency with text interpolation. In the case
of %r, the inconsistency is based on
needing to disallow arbitrary Unicode code points in the result and not wanting
to redefine %r as a second way to spell
%a. There's no
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:33:53 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As far as use cases go, as someone else mentioned, the main one is likely
> to be binary logging and error reporting formats, as it becomes a quick and
> easy way to embed a backslash escaped string.
That's a fringe use case, though. Also,
On 25 Feb 2014 05:44, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:40:46 -0800
> Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> > Okay, types corrected, most comments taken into account.
> >
> > %b is right out, %a is still suffering scrutiny.
> >
> > The arguments seem to boil down to:
> >
> > We don't need it.
2014-02-24 22:08 GMT+01:00 Jim J. Jewett :
>>> Will ascii() ever emit an antislash representation?
Sorry, it's chr(0x10):
>>> print(ascii(chr(0x10)))
'\U0010'
Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/
Victor Stinner wrote:
>> Will ascii() ever emit an antislash representation?
> Try ascii(chr(0x1f)).
In which version? I get:
ValueError: chr() arg not in range(0x11)
> How do you plan to use this output? Write it into a socket or a file?
> When I debug, I use print & logging w
On 02/24/2014 11:54 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 24/02/2014 18:40, Ethan Furman wrote:
So, any last thoughts about %a?
I placed it under your nose
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-January/131636.html but
personally I
wouldn't lose any sleep whether it stays or goes.
So you
On 24/02/2014 18:40, Ethan Furman wrote:
Okay, types corrected, most comments taken into account.
%b is right out, %a is still suffering scrutiny.
The arguments seem to boil down to:
We don't need it.
vs
Somebody might, and it's better than having them inappropriately add a
__bytes__ method
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:40:46 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
> Okay, types corrected, most comments taken into account.
>
> %b is right out, %a is still suffering scrutiny.
>
> The arguments seem to boil down to:
>
> We don't need it.
>
> vs
>
> Somebody might, and it's better than having them ina
On 2/24/2014 10:40 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Somebody might, and it's better than having them inappropriately add a
__bytes__ method if we don't have it.
I'll admit my first thought on reading the initial discussions about
adding bytes % formatting was "Oh, if I want to display custom objects
Okay, types corrected, most comments taken into account.
%b is right out, %a is still suffering scrutiny.
The arguments seem to boil down to:
We don't need it.
vs
Somebody might, and it's better than having them inappropriately add a
__bytes__ method if we don't have it.
"We don't need it"
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:58:30 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 09:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:15:29 -0800
> > Ethan Furman wrote:
> >> On 02/23/2014 02:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It's a harm containment tactic, based on the assumption people *will*
On 02/24/2014 09:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:15:29 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
On 02/23/2014 02:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
It's a harm containment tactic, based on the assumption people *will*
want to include the output of ascii() in binary protocols containing
ASCII s
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:15:29 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/23/2014 02:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >
> > It's a harm containment tactic, based on the assumption people *will*
> > want to include the output of ascii() in binary protocols containing
> > ASCII segments, regardless of whether or
On 02/23/2014 02:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
It's a harm containment tactic, based on the assumption people *will*
want to include the output of ascii() in binary protocols containing
ASCII segments, regardless of whether or not we consider their reasons
for doing so to be particularly good.
O
2014-02-24 3:45 GMT+01:00 Nick Coghlan :
> Would leaving %a out destroy the utility of the PEP?
Usually, debug code is not even commited. So writing b'var=%s' %
ascii(var).encode() is not hard.
Or maybe: b'var=%s' % repr(var).encode('ascii', 'backslashreplace')
which is the same but longer :-)
V
On 24 February 2014 08:56, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 23Feb2014 22:56, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> > An aid to debugging -- need to see what's what at that moment? Toss it
>> > into %a. It is not intended for production code, but is included to
>> > hopefully circumvent the inappropriate use of _
Glenn Linderman writes:
> On 2/23/2014 2:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:14:55 -0800 Glenn Linderman
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2014 1:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
And you certainly*don't* print debugging output into a wire protocol.
>>> Web server applications do,
On 2/23/2014 2:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:14:55 -0800
Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 2/23/2014 1:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
And you certainly*don't* print debugging output into a wire protocol.
Web server applications do, so they can be displayed in the browser.
They m
On 2/23/2014 4:25 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> I agree that having only one decimal format code would be nice, or even
> two if the second one did something different, and that three seems
> completely over the top -- unfortunately, Python 3.4 still supports all
> three (%d, %i, and %u). Not supportin
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:54:08 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > > The idea being if we offer %a, folks won't be tempted to abuse
> __bytes__.
> >
> > Which folks are we talking about? This sounds gratuitous.
>
> It's a harm containment tactic, based on the assumption people *will* want
> to include th
On 23Feb2014 22:56, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > An aid to debugging -- need to see what's what at that moment? Toss it
> > into %a. It is not intended for production code, but is included to
> > hopefully circumvent the inappropriate use of __bytes__ methods on classes.
>
> How do you plan to use
On 24 Feb 2014 07:39, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:42:59 -0800
> Ethan Furman wrote:
> > On 02/23/2014 03:33 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:56:50 -0800
> > > Ethan Furman wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ``%a`` will call :func:``ascii()`` on the interpolated val
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:14:55 -0800
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On 2/23/2014 1:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > And you certainly*don't* print debugging output into a wire protocol.
>
> Web server applications do, so they can be displayed in the browser.
They may embed debugging information into so
On 2/23/2014 1:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
And you certainly*don't* print debugging output into a wire protocol.
Web server applications do, so they can be displayed in the browser.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.pyth
>
>
>>>
>> (You forgot "/U" representation (it's an antislah, but I don't
>> see the key on my Mac keyboard?).)
>>
>
> Hard to forget what you don't know. ;) Will ascii() ever emit an
> antislash representation?
Try ascii(chr(0x1f)).
What is the use case of this *new* formatter? H
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:42:59 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/23/2014 03:33 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:56:50 -0800
> > Ethan Furman wrote:
> >>
> >> ``%a`` will call :func:``ascii()`` on the interpolated value's
> >> :func:``repr()``.
> >> This is intended as a debuggi
On 02/23/2014 03:30 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
First, this is a warning in reST syntax:
System Message: WARNING/2 (pep-0461.txt, line 53)
Yup, fixed that.
This area of programming is characterized by a mixture of binary data and
ASCII compatible segments of text (aka ASCII-encoded text). B
On 02/23/2014 03:33 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:56:50 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
``%a`` will call :func:``ascii()`` on the interpolated value's :func:``repr()``.
This is intended as a debugging aid, rather than something that should be used
in production. Non-ascii values
On 02/22/2014 10:50 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
Ethan Furman writes:
Example::
>>> b'%4x' % 10
b' a'
>>> '%#4x' % 10
' 0xa'
>>> '%04X' % 10
'000A'
Shouldn't the second two examples also be bytes, ie. b'%#4x' instead of
'%#4x'?
Yup, thanks.
--
~Ethan~
_
On 02/23/2014 03:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 20:48:04 -0800 Ethan Furman wrote:
All the numeric formatting codes (such as ``%x``, ``%o``, ``%e``, ``%f``,
``%g``, etc.) will be supported, and will work as they do for str, including
the padding, justification and other relate
Ethan Furman writes:
> Example::
>
>>>> b'%4x' % 10
>b' a'
>
>>>> '%#4x' % 10
>' 0xa'
>
>>>> '%04X' % 10
>'000A'
Shouldn't the second two examples also be bytes, ie. b'%#4x' instead of
'%#4x'?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8
On 23Feb2014 12:30, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > All the numeric formatting codes (such as ``%x``, ``%o``, ``%e``, ``%f``,
> > ``%g``, etc.) will be supported, and will work as they do for str, including
> > the padding, justification and other related modifiers.
>
> IMO you should give the exhausti
On 23Feb2014 16:31, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 23 February 2014 13:47, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > On 22Feb2014 17:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
> >> Please let me know if anything else needs tweaking.
> >> [...]
> >> This area of programming is characterized by a mixture of binary data and
> >> ASCII co
Hi,
First, this is a warning in reST syntax:
System Message: WARNING/2 (pep-0461.txt, line 53)
> This area of programming is characterized by a mixture of binary data and
> ASCII compatible segments of text (aka ASCII-encoded text). Bringing back a
> restricted %-interpolation for ``bytes`` and
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:56:50 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> ``%a`` will call :func:``ascii()`` on the interpolated value's
> :func:``repr()``.
> This is intended as a debugging aid, rather than something that should be used
> in production. Non-ascii values will be encoded to either ``\xnn`` or
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 20:48:04 -0800
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/22/2014 07:47 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > On 22Feb2014 17:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
> >> Please let me know if anything else needs tweaking.
> >> [...]
> >> This area of programming is characterized by a mixture of binary data and
>
Thanks Ethan, this mostly looks excellent.
On 23 February 2014 11:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
> ``%a`` will call :func:``ascii()`` on the interpolated value's
> :func:``repr()``.
> This is intended as a debugging aid, rather than something that should be
> used
> in production. Non-ascii values will
On 23 February 2014 13:47, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 22Feb2014 17:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> Please let me know if anything else needs tweaking.
>> [...]
>> This area of programming is characterized by a mixture of binary data and
>> ASCII compatible segments of text (aka ASCII-encoded text).
>
On 02/22/2014 07:47 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 22Feb2014 17:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
Please let me know if anything else needs tweaking.
[...]
This area of programming is characterized by a mixture of binary data and
ASCII compatible segments of text (aka ASCII-encoded text).
[...]
%-interpol
On 02/22/2014 07:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 23/02/2014 02:30, Ethan Furman wrote:
+be any more of a nuisance than the already existing methdods.
Typo "methdods".
Thanks, fixed.
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http
On 22Feb2014 17:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Please let me know if anything else needs tweaking.
> [...]
> This area of programming is characterized by a mixture of binary data and
> ASCII compatible segments of text (aka ASCII-encoded text).
> [...]
> %-interpolation
>
> All the numeric formatting
On 23/02/2014 02:30, Ethan Furman wrote:
+be any more of a nuisance than the already existing methdods.
Typo "methdods".
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
---
This email is free from viruses and malware
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Open Questions
> ==
>
> It has been suggested to use ``%b`` for bytes as well as ``%s``.
>
> - Pro: clearly says 'this is bytes'; should be used for new code.
>
> - Con: does not exist in Python 2.x, so we would have two ways
Sorry, found a couple more comments in a different thread. Here's what I added:
+Objections
+==
+
+The objections raised against this PEP were mainly variations on two themes::
+
+ - the ``bytes`` and ``bytearray`` types are for pure binary data, with no
+assumptions about encodings
Greetings, all!
I think I'm about ready to ask for pronouncement for this PEP, but I would like opinions on the Open Questions question
so I can close it. :)
Please let me know if anything else needs tweaking.
--
PEP: 461
Title: Adding % f
50 matches
Mail list logo
