On 6/11/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum schrieb: > > On 6/10/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> > On 6/10/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Guido van Rossum schrieb: > >> >>> Very cool; thanks!!! No problems so far. > >> >>> > >> >>> I wonder if we need a bin() built-in that is to 0b like oct() is to 0o > >> >>> and hex() to 0x? > >> >> Would that also require a __bin__() special method? > >> > > >> > If the other two use it, we might as well model it that way. > >> > >> I must admit I've never understood why hex() and oct() don't just go > >> through __int__() (Note that the integer formats are all defined as > >> going through int() in PEP 3101). > >> > >> If we only want them to work for true integers, then we have __index__() > >> available now. > > > > Well, maybe it's time to kill __oct__ and __hex__ then. > > Okay, attached is a patch to do that. > > It adds a new abstract function, PyNumber_ToBase, that converts an > __index__able > integer to an arbitrary base. bin(), oct() and hex() just uses it. > (I've left the slots in the PyNumberMethods struct for now.) > > There was not much library code to change: only tests used the special > methods.
Beautiful. Check it in please! > Though /me wonders if we shouldn't just expose PyNumber_ToBase as a single > function that mirrors int(str, base). I think not. int(), oct(), hex() mirror the literal notations, and because of this, they can insert the 0[box] prefix. I think the discussions about this issue have revealed that there really isn't any use case for other bases. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
