Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>>> I think we ought to let this sit for a while and come back to it in a
>>> few week's time. Is 'base' really the right name? It could just as
>>> well be considered a conversion in the other direction.
>> the same applies to hex and oct, of course.
>
> Right. And this is not a hypothetical issue either -- in Perl, hex and
> oct *do* work the other way I believe. More reasons to get rid of
> these in Python 3000. Perhaps we should also get rid of hex/oct
> lterals?
I'm not aware of anyone that would miss octal literals, but there are plenty
of hardware weenies like me that would find "int("DEAD", 16)" less convenient
than "0xDEAD". Python is a bit too heavyweight for a lot of embedded work, but
its *great* for writing host-based test harnesses.
I quite like the suggestion of using 'math.base' rather than a builtin, but
there are still issues to be figured out there:
- the math module is currently a thin wrapper around C's "math.h". Do we
really want to change that by adding more methods?
- is 'base' the right name?
- should we allow a "digits" argument, or just the radix argument?
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
