Message239815
| Author | r.david.murray |
|---|---|
| Recipients | docs@python, ezio.melotti, martin.panter, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, skrah |
| Date | 2015-04-01.14:01:44 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1427896905.09.0.892062765857.issue23756@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I found the explanation of C-contiguous vs Fortran-contiguous helpful (and I've programmed in both of those languages, though granted not much :). However, based on that it is not obvious to me why having a fortran-contiguous buffer prevents it from being used in the bytes-like object contexts (though granted the order might be surprising to someone who is not thinking about the memory ordering and just assuming C). I don't have much of an opinion on the other non-glossary-entry changes, but at a quick read I'm not sure how much clarity they add, if any. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-04-01 14:01:45 | r.david.murray | set | recipients: + r.david.murray, ezio.melotti, skrah, docs@python, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2015-04-01 14:01:45 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1427896905.09.0.892062765857.issue23756@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-04-01 14:01:45 | r.david.murray | link | issue23756 messages |
| 2015-04-01 14:01:44 | r.david.murray | create | |