On Jan 27, 2008 9:26 AM, Andrea Griffini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 27, 2008 5:43 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Deprecating int(<float>) is pretty radical, I think it would have to > > happen in the distant future. OR not at all. I'm at best +0 on this, > > more like exactly 0. I realize that in practice this kills the idea. > > The "purist" argument for it would have worked better if it was made > > 18 years ago. > > Also what happens with "%i" % 3.14 ? We incidentally found a problem > with a script using python 2.5 because apparently the "%" formatting > operator doesn't use "int()" for doing the conversion (to be more specific > if the float is too large for a 32-bit integer then the format operator chokes > while the int() operator returns a long).
That's quite a separate issue. Please ses http://bugs.python.org/issue1742669. > Anyway I want just to say that if "implicit" conversion from float > to integer goes away then what happens to formatting conversion ? > Removing that too IMO would break a lot of code and it's IMO very > difficult to help fixing that. The formatting code could assign specific meanings. I suspect though that it was never meant to be possible to use %d with a float -- it just is one of the artifacts of using implicit conversion, and one not well-thought through. Note: >>> "%.0f" % 3.9999999999 '4' >>> "%d" % 3.9999999999 '3' >>> I think the latter is wrong and confusing. -- --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
