[Python-Dev] proposed struct module format code addition

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Carlos Ribeiro wrote:
> Sorry for introducing my not-very-qualified words on this topic,
> but... I've read the thread up to this point wondering why the bytes()
> type were not being thought of as a clean and definitive solution to
> this problem. It would allow to greatly simplify everything regarding
> struct, binascii and arbitrary low level data manipulation for
> networking and similar stuff.

No, it wouldn't. If you have a 'long' value, and you want to convert
it to 'bytes', how exactly would you do that? Two's complement, I
suppose - but that would close out people who want unsigned numbers.
Also, do you want big-endian or little-endian? What about a minimum
width, what about overflows?

Tim has proposed a signature for binascii that covers all these
scenarios, and I doubt it could get simpler then that and still useful.

> I also agree with Tim Peters comments regarding struct's C heritage --
> I never really liked C even when I *had* to use it daily, and the
> struct syntax still reads alien to me. I know this is another
> timeframe entirely, but *if* my vote counted, I would be +1 for a
> future struct implementation tightly integrated with the bytes() type.

I think you will find that the struct module *already* supports
the bytes type. The bytes type will be just a synonym for the current
string type, except that people will stop associating characters
with the individual bytes; plus the bytes type will be possibly mutable.
As the struct module creates (byte) strings today, it will trivially
support the bytes type.

Regards,
Martin