Message172401
| Author | serhiy.storchaka |
|---|---|
| Recipients | christian.heimes, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date | 2012-10-08.18:50:16 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <201210082150.01041.storchaka@gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1349721131.22.0.838179650467.issue16166@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> Ouch, sounds confusing. I would rather have PY_LITTLE_ENDIAN defined only > on little-endian machines and PY_BIG_ENDIAN only on big-endian machines. > (and PY_BYTE_ORDER isn't necessary) Why use two complementary boolean variables for a single boolean value (Python does not support mixed endian in any case)? There is WORDS_BIGENDIAN already. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-10-08 18:50:16 | serhiy.storchaka | set | recipients: + serhiy.storchaka, pitrou, christian.heimes |
| 2012-10-08 18:50:16 | serhiy.storchaka | link | issue16166 messages |
| 2012-10-08 18:50:16 | serhiy.storchaka | create | |