On Jan 19, 9:00 am, Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote: > > So, you can always assume a big-endian and things will work out correctly > while you cannot always make the same assumption as little endian > without potential issues. The same holds true for any byte stream data.
You need to spend some serious time programming a serial port or other byte/bit-stream oriented interface, and then you'll realize the folly of your statement. > That is why I say that byte streams are essentially big endian. It is > all a matter of how you look at it. It is nothing of the sort. Some byte streams are in fact, little endian: when the bytes are combined into larger objects, the least- significant byte in the object comes first. A lot of industrial/ embedded stuff has byte streams with LSB leading in the sequence, CAN comes to mind as an example. The only way to know is for the standard describing the stream to tell you what to do. > > I prefer to look at all data as endian even if it doesn't create > endian issues because it forces me to consider any endian issues that > might arise. If none do, I haven't really lost anything. > If you simply assume that any byte sequence cannot have endian issues you > ignore the > possibility that such issues might not arise. No, you must assume nothing unless you're told how to combine the bytes within a sequence into a larger element. Plus, not all byte streams support such operations! Some byte streams really are just a sequence of bytes and the bytes within the stream cannot be meaningfully combined into larger data types. If I give you a series of 8-bit (so 1 byte) samples from an analog-to-digital converter, tell me how to combine them into a 16, 32, or 64-bit integer. You cannot do it without altering the meaning of the samples; it is a completely non-nonsensical operation. Adam -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
