Do we care about this (after your checkin and with my fix to make
32-63 bit values ints rather than longs):
# 64 bit box
>>> minint = str(-sys.maxint - 1)
>>> minint
'-9223372036854775808'
>>> eval(minint)
-9223372036854775808
>>> eval('-(%s)' % minint[1:])
-9223372036854775808L
n
--
On 7/9/06, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The bug was reported by Armin in SF #1333982:
>
> the literal -2147483648 (i.e. the value of -sys.maxint-1) gives
> a long in 2.5, but an int in <= 2.4.
>
> I have a fix but I wonder if it's the right thing to do. I suppose
> returning a long has the chance of breaking someone code. Here's
> the test we currently have for a related case:
>
> [...]
> # 32-bit machine
> all_one_bits = '0xffffffff'
> self.assertEqual(eval(all_one_bits), 4294967295L)
> self.assertEqual(eval("-" + all_one_bits), -4294967295L)
>
> I guess I would add self.assertTrue(isinstance(eval("-2147483648"), int))
> to that set of tests.
>
> Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/nnorwitz%40gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
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
