Author mark.dickinson
Recipients Alexander.Belopolsky, MrJean1, ajaksu2, barry, benjamin.peterson, inducer, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, noufal, pitrou, teoliphant
Date 2010-05-19.19:27:14
SpamBayes Score 0.00211628
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1274297236.87.0.719292879068.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Thanks for the Rietveld upload.  I haven't had a chance to review this properly yet, but hope to do so within the next few days.

One question: the production list you added to the docs says:

  format_string: (`byte_order_specifier`? `type_string`)*

This suggests that format strings like '<' and '<>b' are invalid;  is that correct, or should the production list be something like:

  format_string: (`byte_order_specifier` | `type_string`)*

?  Whether these cases are valid or not (personally, I think they should be), we should add some tests for them.  '<' *is* currently valid, I believe.


The possibility of mixing native size/alignment with standard size/alignment in a single format string makes me a bit uneasy, but I can't see any actual problems that might arise from it (equally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it).  I wondered briefly whether padding has clear semantics when a '@' appears in the middle of a format string, but I can't see why it wouldn't have.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-05-19 19:27:17mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, barry, teoliphant, pitrou, inducer, ajaksu2, MrJean1, benjamin.peterson, noufal, meador.inge, Alexander.Belopolsky
2010-05-19 19:27:16mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <1274297236.87.0.719292879068.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-05-19 19:27:14mark.dickinsonlinkissue3132 messages
2010-05-19 19:27:14mark.dickinsoncreate