On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:55:31AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> >Objects that implement __str__ can also implement __bytes__ if they
> >can guarantee that ASCII characters are always returned,
>
> I think __ascii_ would be a better name. I'd expect
> a method called __bytes__ on an int to return some
> version of its binary value.

+1

If we are going the route of a new magic method then __ascii__ or __bytes_format__ get my vote as long as they only return bytes (I see no need to abbreviate to __bformat__ or __formatb__ when we have method names as long as __text_signature__ now).
">

(original) (raw)




On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:55:31AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
\> Neil Schemenauer wrote:
\> >Objects that implement \_\_str\_\_ can also implement \_\_bytes\_\_ if they
\> >can guarantee that ASCII characters are always returned,
\>
\> I think \_\_ascii\_ would be a better name. I'd expect
\> a method called \_\_bytes\_\_ on an int to return some
\> version of its binary value.

+1

If we are going the route of a new magic method then \_\_ascii\_\_ or \_\_bytes\_format\_\_ get my vote as long as they only return bytes (I see no need to abbreviate to \_\_bformat\_\_ or \_\_formatb\_\_ when we have method names as long as \_\_text\_signature\_\_ now).