On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 10:05 +0000, Nick Craig-Wood wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:13:27PM -0500, Raymond Hettinger wrote: [...] > Another suggestion would be to give hex() and oct() another parameter, > base, so you'd do hex(123123123, 2). Perhaps a little > counter-intuitive, but if you were looking for base conversion > functions you'd find hex() pretty quickly and the documentation would > mention the other parameter.
Ugh! I still favour extending % format strings. I really like '%b' for binary, but if arbitary bases are really wanted, then perhaps also leverage off the "precision" value for %d to indicate base such that '% 3.3d' % 5 = " 12" If people think that using "." is for "precision" and is too ambiguous for "base", you could do something like extend the whole conversion specifier to (in EBNF) [EMAIL PROTECTED] which would allow for weird things like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" % 5.5 == " 12.1111" Note: it is possible for floats to be represented in non-decimal number systems, its just extremely rare for anyone to do it. I have in my distant past used base 16 float notation for fixed-point numbers. I personally think %b would be adding enough. The other suggestions are just me being silly :-) -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
