From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2006-03-31T06:45:16+09:00
Subject: Re: unpack signed short in network (big-endian) byte order

On Mar 30, 2006, at 1:38 PM, baumanj@gmail.com wrote:

> Perhaps this should be a new subject like "adding formats for
> pack/unpack". I gave this a bit of thought, and there are quite a few
> formats that seem to be missing. I would naturally assume that there
> should be support for each combination of
>
> {unsigned, signed} x {native, network, little-endian} x {short, int,
> long}
>
> However, of these 18 formats, 8 are missing. There are more than  
> enough
> unused characters to specify them (j J k K o O r R t T W y Y z). I
> tried to come up with consistent mappings based on what already exists
> and this is what I came up with (?s indicate that the format is not
> currently supported):

[...]

> I'm thinking of submitting an RCR for this,

Don't bother with an RCR, just submit a patch to ruby-core.

> but before I go through the
> effort of figuring out the c code to achieve it, I wanted some  
> opinions
> as to whether this is worthwhile and whether the mappings are  
> sensible.

What does perl or python do for the same types?

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com