Author ncoghlan
Recipients Arfrever, georg.brandl, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, skrah, vstinner
Date 2012-08-07.13:06:22
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1344344784.31.0.810229543481.issue15573@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I confess I was thinking of an even simpler "format strings must be identical" fallback, but agree your way is better, since it reproduces the 3.2 behaviour in many more cases where ignoring the format string actually did the right thing.

The struct docs for the byte order specifier specifically say "the first character of the format string can be used to indicate the byte order, size and alignment of the packed data", so treating format strings that include byte order markers elsewhere in the string as differing from each other if those markers are in different locations sounds fine to me.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-08-07 13:06:24ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, georg.brandl, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, Arfrever, skrah, meador.inge, python-dev
2012-08-07 13:06:24ncoghlansetmessageid: <1344344784.31.0.810229543481.issue15573@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-08-07 13:06:23ncoghlanlinkissue15573 messages
2012-08-07 13:06:22ncoghlancreate