Raymond Hettinger wrote: > I thought the whole point of 3.0 was a recognition that all that > doubling-up was a bad thing and to be rid of it. Why make the > situation worse? ISTM that we need two versions of oct() like > we need a hole in the head. Heck, there's potentially a case to be > made that we don't need oct() at all. IIRC, unix permissions like > 0666 were the only use case that surfaced.
Postgres bytea coercion is a frequent use case for oct() in my world. But I agree we don't need two versions. Robert Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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
