Message239919
| Author | r.david.murray |
|---|---|
| Recipients | docs@python, ezio.melotti, martin.panter, pitrou, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, skrah |
| Date | 2015-04-02.14:57:07 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1427986627.6.0.349481940994.issue23756@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> If a Fortran array was allowed in a bytes-like context without memory copying, the order of the array elements would differ from the order returned by the meoryview.tobytes() method, which essentially is defined to copy them out in C-array or flattend-tolist() order. I'm still not seeing how this would cause such an object to throw an error if used in a bytes-like context. I presume by the above that you mean that the results of passing the object directly to a bytes like context differs from the results of calling .tobytes() on it and passing *that* to the bytes like context. That's not what your suggested documentation change says, though. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-04-02 14:57:07 | r.david.murray | set | recipients: + r.david.murray, pitrou, ezio.melotti, skrah, docs@python, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2015-04-02 14:57:07 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1427986627.6.0.349481940994.issue23756@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-04-02 14:57:07 | r.david.murray | link | issue23756 messages |
| 2015-04-02 14:57:07 | r.david.murray | create | |