Issue 8340: bytearray undocumented on trunk (original) (raw)

Created on 2010-04-07 23:22 by brian.curtin, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Messages (9)
msg102576 - (view)	Author: Brian Curtin (brian.curtin) *	Date: 2010-04-07 23:22
It looks like the bytearray documentation wasn't backported when the bytearray code was. See Doc/library/functions.rst
msg102796 - (view)	Author: Shashwat Anand (l0nwlf)	Date: 2010-04-10 22:01
On a related note, the documentation of 'bytes' is not backported too.
msg102798 - (view)	Author: Shashwat Anand (l0nwlf)	Date: 2010-04-10 22:08
Attached a patch to backport the 'bytearray' and 'bytes' documentation in trunk.
msg102799 - (view)	Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) *	Date: 2010-04-10 22:10
> * If it is a *string*, you must also give the *encoding* (and optionally, > *errors*) parameters; :func:`bytearray` then converts the string to > bytes using :meth:`str.encode`. I think this needs some lines to tell how it behaves with str and unicode. Regards
msg108259 - (view)	Author: Mark Dickinson (mark.dickinson) *	Date: 2010-06-21 09:19
This affects 2.6 as well, doesn't it?
msg108262 - (view)	Author: Mark Dickinson (mark.dickinson) *	Date: 2010-06-21 11:48
Ideally, there should be documentation of 'bytes' and 'bytearray' in the 'Built-in Types' section of the library manual, too. (library/stdtypes.rst).
msg108293 - (view)	Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *	Date: 2010-06-21 18:09
'bytes' is an alias for 'str' in 2.x, so it shouldn't be "documented" separately. As for bytearray, yes, it should be added if not present.
msg111515 - (view)	Author: (ipatrol)	Date: 2010-07-25 00:37
Yeah, I'll say. I prefer bytearray to back-and-forth mapping with chr and ord. I use it particularly as a mid-step in working with binary representations of strings. Please backport these docs with changes reflecting 2.x's paradigms.
msg121735 - (view)	Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *	Date: 2010-11-20 19:37
Done in r86602.