Author lemburg
Recipients doerwalter, eric.araujo, lemburg, loewis, pitrou, vstinner
Date 2010-06-08.08:00:04
SpamBayes Score 0.182676
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4C0DF883.7000409@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <1275950926.09.0.370952171389.issue8838@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
STINNER Victor wrote:
> 
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
> 
> MAL agreed to remove "t#" parsing format (#8839), whereas charbuffer_encode() main goal was to offer "t#" parsing format to Python object space. charbuffer_encode() is now useless in Python3. bytes() accepts any buffer object (read-only and read/write buffer), so readbuffer_encode() became useless in Python3.
> 
> readbuffer_encode() and charbuffer_encode() were never documented, and are not used by any 3rd party library.
> 
> Can we remove these two functions?

Like I said before:

We can remore charbuffer_encode() now and perhaps
add it again later on when buffers have learned (again) to
provide access to a text version of their data. In this
case, we'd likely add t# back again as well.

Please leave readbuffer_encode() as-is.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-06-08 08:00:08lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, pitrou, vstinner, eric.araujo
2010-06-08 08:00:05lemburglinkissue8838 messages
2010-06-08 08:00:04lemburgcreate