On Aug 29, 10:30 pm, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >CMIIW correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that pack_into returns a
> >value the way that pack does.
>
> Sorry, I was not aware that struct.pack_into and struct.unpack_from already
> existed (
castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>CMIIW correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that pack_into returns a
>value the way that pack does.
Sorry, I was not aware that struct.pack_into and struct.unpack_from already
existed (they were added in Python 2.5). I thought you were proposing them
as n
On Aug 28, 1:59 am, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'd like to seriously nominate this idea and get a considered opinion
> >on it.
>
> >struct.Struct lets you encode Python objects into structured memory.
> >It accepts a format string, and option
castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'd like to seriously nominate this idea and get a considered opinion
>on it.
>
>struct.Struct lets you encode Python objects into structured memory.
>It accepts a format string, and optionally a buffer and offset to/from
>which to read/write the structure.
I'd like to seriously nominate this idea and get a considered opinion
on it.
struct.Struct lets you encode Python objects into structured memory.
It accepts a format string, and optionally a buffer and offset to/from
which to read/write the structure. What do you think of random access
to the res
