You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
struct.Struct.format is bytes, but should be str #65270
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
assignee=Noneclosed_at=<Date2017-06-23.13:14:01.966>created_at=<Date2014-03-26.17:48:53.473>labels= ['3.7', 'type-bug', 'library', 'docs']
title='struct.Struct.format is bytes, but should be str'updated_at=<Date2017-06-23.13:14:01.965>user='https://bugs.python.org/zbysz'
I agree that the implementation does not match the documentation in this case. Especially the part about "the format string used to create this Struct object". I don't see what having a flag would buy you: it doesn't help you in writing 2/3 shared code. I think the best we can do here is a doc change.
This is closely related to bpo-16349. If format strings were explicitly allowed to be byte strings there would be less conflict, but documenting the data type of the “format” attribute is better than nothing.
I would like to see this and bpo-8934 discussed as a usability bug. As far as I can tell, the current state of affairs an unintended by-product of a rushed effort to split the standard library to bytes apis and unicode apis. I don't see any reason that we should have to live with this forever.
A backwards-compatible way forward would be to preserve (and document) the “format” attribute as a byte string, and add a new attribute which is definitely a text string. Not sure of a good name; perhaps “Struct.text_format” or “format_str” is a start.
Hi Victor, I’m not sure about changing the data type. As Python 3 grows older, there is potentially more code being written that you break by fixing a bug like this. It is incompatible if you used to write
>>> print(struct.Struct('hi').format.decode())
hi
I have used this decode() trick in the past to build composite format strings; e.g.: <https://bugs.python.org/issue16349#msg174083\>. If you change the data type this code will raise AttributeError. At a minimum you should acknowledge it in the “porting” section of What’s New.
Also, if you make this change, maybe update the module doc string. See the end of format-str.patch.
Martin: "At a minimum you should acknowledge it in the “porting”
section of What’s New."
I wasn't sure if the change was worth it to be mentionned in What's
New in Python 3.7. Ok, will do for the next round (I'm now waiting for
more feedback on my python-dev thread and this issue.)
+1 for change bytes to str. But struct.Struct() accepts both bytes and str, maybe in future buffer objects. When it gets a bytes object, converting it to a str looks unnecessary to me, and as OP said, comparison (a theoretical use case) could still fail. Could we just leave what the user passes in? bytes(bytes-like) -> bytes, str -> str. This looks more natural to me.
After changing the type of Struct.format to str we perhaps should deprecate accepting bytes as format. Currently this can lead to emitting a BytesWarning.
$ ./python -Wa -b
>>> import struct
>>> struct.pack('I', 12345)
b'90\x00\x00'
>>> struct.pack(b'I', 12345)
__main__:1: BytesWarning: Comparison between bytes and string
__main__:1: BytesWarning: Comparison between bytes and string
b'90\x00\x00'
I don’t think the API should be expanded to accept arbitrary bytes-like objects as format strings. Struct formats are strings of ASCII-compatible characters, but not arbitrary chunks of memory.
I think the main question is whether it is okay to break compatibility (Victor’s pull request, or my format-str.patch), or whether there has to be a backwards-compatible deprecation of the existing bytes attribute. FWIW I am okay with breaking compatibility, since the main documentation already implies it should be a text string.
Activity
zbysz commentedon Mar 26, 2014
In Python 2, Struct.format used to be a str. In Python 3 it is bytes, which is unexpected.
Why do I expect .format to be a string:
Why is this a problem:
benjaminp commentedon Mar 26, 2014
I agree that's rather unfortunate. It would be backwards incompatible to change, though.
zbysz commentedon Mar 26, 2014
Maybe a flag param for the constructor?
bitdancer commentedon Mar 26, 2014
I agree that the implementation does not match the documentation in this case. Especially the part about "the format string used to create this Struct object". I don't see what having a flag would buy you: it doesn't help you in writing 2/3 shared code. I think the best we can do here is a doc change.
vadmium commentedon Apr 17, 2014
This is closely related to bpo-16349. If format strings were explicitly allowed to be byte strings there would be less conflict, but documenting the data type of the “format” attribute is better than nothing.
vadmium commentedon Dec 16, 2014
It seems to me that the simplest fix is to document:
Here is a patch that does that, and adds some simple test cases.
vstinner commentedon Dec 17, 2014
I'm in favor of breaking the compatibility with Python 3.4 and return the format as an Unicode string.
vadmium commentedon Dec 18, 2014
I originally assumed it would be a text string from the existing documentation, so changing the behaviour to match also seems reasonable
vadmium commentedon Dec 18, 2014
Here is a patch that changes over to a str() type.
Is it safe to assume PyUnicode_AsUTF8() is null-terminated (like PyBytes_AS_STRING() is)? My documentation doesn’t say.
vstinner commentedon Dec 18, 2014
Yes, Python ensures that the string is null terminated.
Yes, PyBytes_AS_STRING() also ends with a null byte.
By the way, Unicode strings internally ends with a null character.
serhiy-storchaka commentedon Dec 18, 2014
I think breaking the compatibility should be discussed on Python-Dev. Similar issue (and even worse) is bpo-8934.
1 remaining item
rhettinger commentedon Dec 20, 2014
I would like to see this and bpo-8934 discussed as a usability bug. As far as I can tell, the current state of affairs an unintended by-product of a rushed effort to split the standard library to bytes apis and unicode apis. I don't see any reason that we should have to live with this forever.
vadmium commentedon Mar 25, 2017
A backwards-compatible way forward would be to preserve (and document) the “format” attribute as a byte string, and add a new attribute which is definitely a text string. Not sure of a good name; perhaps “Struct.text_format” or “format_str” is a start.
vstinner commentedon Mar 27, 2017
I created #845 to change struct.Struct.format type to str (Unicode).
struct.Struct() accepts bytes and str format strings, so it's not really a backward incompatible change.
It's just a minor enhancement to help development:
Without the patch:
serhiy-storchaka commentedon Mar 27, 2017
This should be discussed on Python-Dev first. I already raised this issue on Python-Dev, but don't remember what is the result.
vadmium commentedon Mar 27, 2017
Hi Victor, I’m not sure about changing the data type. As Python 3 grows older, there is potentially more code being written that you break by fixing a bug like this. It is incompatible if you used to write
I have used this decode() trick in the past to build composite format strings; e.g.: <https://bugs.python.org/issue16349#msg174083\>. If you change the data type this code will raise AttributeError. At a minimum you should acknowledge it in the “porting” section of What’s New.
Also, if you make this change, maybe update the module doc string. See the end of format-str.patch.
vstinner commentedon Mar 27, 2017
Ok, I opened a thread on python-dev:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-March/147688.html
Martin: "At a minimum you should acknowledge it in the “porting”
section of What’s New."
I wasn't sure if the change was worth it to be mentionned in What's
New in Python 3.7. Ok, will do for the next round (I'm now waiting for
more feedback on my python-dev thread and this issue.)
zhangyangyu commentedon Apr 27, 2017
+1 for change bytes to str. But struct.Struct() accepts both bytes and str, maybe in future buffer objects. When it gets a bytes object, converting it to a str looks unnecessary to me, and as OP said, comparison (a theoretical use case) could still fail. Could we just leave what the user passes in? bytes(bytes-like) -> bytes, str -> str. This looks more natural to me.
serhiy-storchaka commentedon Apr 27, 2017
After changing the type of Struct.format to str we perhaps should deprecate accepting bytes as format. Currently this can lead to emitting a BytesWarning.
zhangyangyu commentedon Apr 27, 2017
The warnings are possible to remove I think... but deprecate bytes arguments sounds good.
vadmium commentedon Apr 29, 2017
I don’t think the API should be expanded to accept arbitrary bytes-like objects as format strings. Struct formats are strings of ASCII-compatible characters, but not arbitrary chunks of memory.
I think the main question is whether it is okay to break compatibility (Victor’s pull request, or my format-str.patch), or whether there has to be a backwards-compatible deprecation of the existing bytes attribute. FWIW I am okay with breaking compatibility, since the main documentation already implies it should be a text string.
vstinner commentedon Jun 23, 2017
New changeset f87b85f by Victor Stinner in branch 'master':
bpo-21071: struct.Struct.format type is now str (#845)
f87b85f
vstinner commentedon Jun 23, 2017
Ok, I changed struct.Struct.format type to str (Unicode string).
If someone wants to modify the C code to use a PyUnicodeObject rather than a char*, feel free to propose a further change.
Since the initial issue is fixed, I now close the issue.
Thank you all for your feedback and reviews ;-)