There appear to be two different ways to convert a string to bytes, as seen in the answers to TypeError: 'str' does not support the buffer interface
Which of these methods would be better or more Pythonic? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?
b = bytes(mystring, 'utf-8') b = mystring.encode('utf-8')
The bytes() function returns a bytes object. It can convert objects into bytes objects, or create empty bytes object of the specified size. The difference between bytes() and bytearray() is that bytes() returns an object that cannot be modified, and bytearray() returns an object that can be modified.
In Python, a byte string is just that: a sequence of bytes. It isn't human-readable. Under the hood, everything must be converted to a byte string before it can be stored in a computer. On the other hand, a character string, often just called a "string", is a sequence of characters. It is human-readable.
The simplest way to do so is using parseByte() method of Byte class in java.
The correct answer is: p. communicate(b"insert into egg values ('egg');"); Note the leading b, telling you that it's a string of bytes, not a string of unicode characters.
If you look at the docs for bytes
, it points you to bytearray
:
bytearray([source[, encoding[, errors]]])
Return a new array of bytes. The bytearray type is a mutable sequence of integers in the range 0 <= x < 256. It has most of the usual methods of mutable sequences, described in Mutable Sequence Types, as well as most methods that the bytes type has, see Bytes and Byte Array Methods.
The optional source parameter can be used to initialize the array in a few different ways:
If it is a string, you must also give the encoding (and optionally, errors) parameters; bytearray() then converts the string to bytes using str.encode().
If it is an integer, the array will have that size and will be initialized with null bytes.
If it is an object conforming to the buffer interface, a read-only buffer of the object will be used to initialize the bytes array.
If it is an iterable, it must be an iterable of integers in the range 0 <= x < 256, which are used as the initial contents of the array.
Without an argument, an array of size 0 is created.
So bytes
can do much more than just encode a string. It's Pythonic that it would allow you to call the constructor with any type of source parameter that makes sense.
For encoding a string, I think that some_string.encode(encoding)
is more Pythonic than using the constructor, because it is the most self documenting -- "take this string and encode it with this encoding" is clearer than bytes(some_string, encoding)
-- there is no explicit verb when you use the constructor.
I checked the Python source. If you pass a unicode string to bytes
using CPython, it calls PyUnicode_AsEncodedString, which is the implementation of encode
; so you're just skipping a level of indirection if you call encode
yourself.
Also, see Serdalis' comment -- unicode_string.encode(encoding)
is also more Pythonic because its inverse is byte_string.decode(encoding)
and symmetry is nice.
It's easier than it is thought:
my_str = "hello world" my_str_as_bytes = str.encode(my_str) type(my_str_as_bytes) # ensure it is byte representation my_decoded_str = my_str_as_bytes.decode() type(my_decoded_str) # ensure it is string representation
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With