Hi, > It just adds the possibility of using <>. > I agree it's already tricky enough to get things right, which is _exactly_ > why Tim's approach is the right one. Instead of adding more arbitrarily > chosen letters we now have a more meaningful way to indicate endianness. It > also is proven by Tim's patch that this isn't hard to achieve. While > implementation-wise adding some more letters is easier, Tim's patch isn't > really difficult anyway.
So, if I get it right, you would both prefer a RFC proposing to add < and > for letters using machine endianness, with no effect on other letters (like Perl does)? I try to think about possible edge and error cases before what I really think about this proposition. If you have in mind tricky things that could be worth investigating deeper with implementing modifiers, please let me know. — Alexandre Daubois
