Message149368
| Author |
meador.inge |
| Recipients |
alexandre.vassalotti, irmen, meador.inge, pitrou, sbt |
| Date |
2011年12月13日.00:51:42 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.00010923221 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<CAK1QooonSYERq_wZrw7q5vYyiw6=VAE-hnRYx8Xum0HRYCHJJw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1323627474.18.0.266166234145.issue13505@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:17 PM, sbt <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>> I don't really know that much about pickle, but Antoine mentioned that 'bytearray'
>> works fine going from 3.2 to 2.7. Given that, can't we just compose 'bytes' with
>> 'bytearray'?
>
> Yes, although it would only work for 2.6 and 2.7.
Which is fine. 'bytes' and byte literals were not introduced until
2.6 [1,2]. So *any* solution we come
up with is for >= 2.6.
> They also produce more compact pickles, particularly codecs.latin_1_encode().
Now that is a better argument.
[1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0358/
[2] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3112/ |
|