base_connection.buffer is a list of bytes, rather than a bytes

[LivInTheLookingGlass]

For context, see end of #116

[the-zebulan]

Ok, looks like I have some reading to do on bytes. Do you mean replace it with a bytearray?

[LivInTheLookingGlass]

That could also work. The only real difference is that `bytearray` is mutable, if I remember right. There may be some more subtle differences that I don't remember, though. Assuming it doesn't cause bugs I wouldn't expect, `bytearray` looks safer to me. I'm much more comfortable directly modifying an object than reassigning it. And while that's not terribly rational in Python, it's a habit that's stuck with me. `bytearray.append` will probably be your friend.

…

On December 1, 2016 1:57:54 AM EST, the-zebulan ***@***.***> wrote: Ok, looks like I have some reading to do on bytes. Do you mean replace it with a `bytearray`? -- You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #117 (comment)

[the-zebulan]

Ok, thanks for the tip. Ya, it looks like bytes is immutable and bytearray is mutable (append and such). I was just looking at the base_connection code and saw self.buffer.append(data) so that's why I asked about bytesarray.

I'm just about to head to bed but I will mess around with it in the morning and try to get it working!

[LivInTheLookingGlass]

Just tinkered around a little.

There are going to be two things of note, it looks like.

1. Python 3 is more restrictive here than python 2. You'll probably want to test in there before anything else

2. You want bytearray.extend, not bytearray.append. And you want to use array slicing rather than pop. So: bytes(barray[0:x])

[the-zebulan]

Interesting. Ok, thanks for the tips!