On 1/17/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The difference between hex() and oct() and the proposed binary() is > > I'd propose bin() to stay in line with the short abbreviated names.
Are these features used enough to have 3 builtins? Would format(number, base) suffice? format(5, base=2) == '101' format(5, base=8) == '5' format(5, base=8, prefix=True) == '05' format(5, base=16) == '5' format(5, base=16, prefix=True) == '0x5' Or something like that. Then there can be symmetry with int() (arbitrary bases) and we get rid of 2 other builtins eventually. Not sure if there are/should be uses other than number formating. > > that hex() and oct() return valid Python expressions in that base. > > In order for it to make sense, Python would need to grow some syntax. > > Fair enough. So let's define it. > > > If Python were to have syntax for binary literals, I'd propose a > > trailing b: "1100b". It would be convenient at times to represent > > bit flags, but I'm not sure it's worth the syntax change. > > Typically, suffixes are used to indicated *types*: 12L, 12j, and even > 12e0 in some sense. > > The binary type should have a 0b prefix. -0. Is this common enough to add (even in 3k)? For the instances I could have used this, it would have been completely impractical since the hex strings were generally over 80 characters. n _______________________________________________ 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
