On 6/12/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Guido] > > Here's how I interpret PEP 237. Some changes to hex() and oct() are > > warned about in B1and to be implemented in B2. But I'm pretty sure > > that was about the treatment of negative numbers, not about the > > trailing 'L'. I believe the PEP authors overlooked the trailing 'L' > > for hex() and oct(). > > That was mentioned explicitly under "Incompatibilities" (last sentence): > > - Currently, the '%u', '%x', '%X' and '%o' string formatting > operators and the hex() and oct() built-in functions behave > differently for negative numbers: negative short ints are > formatted as unsigned C long, while negative long ints are > formatted with a minus sign. This will be changed to use the > long int semantics in all cases (but without the trailing 'L' > that currently distinguishes the output of hex() and oct() for > long ints). ...
Oops, I missed that. > Since it wasn't mentioned explicitly again under "Transition", but the > trailing 'L' on repr() was explicitly mentioned twice under > "Transition", the least strained logic-chopping reading is that losing > the 'L' for hex() and oct() was intended to be done along with the > other changes in the paragraph quoted above. I now agree with that. > > I think they should be considered just as sticky as the trailing 'L' for > > repr(). > > Given that the "least strained" reading above missed its target > release, and the purpose of target releases was to minimize annoying > changes, I agree it should be left for P3K now regardless. I'll > change the PEP accordingly to make this explicit. Agreed again. Thanks for updating the PEP. PS Tim: did you get my private email about SequenceMatcher? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
