On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Eric Smith > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> > I don't think a -3 warning for oct or hex would do any good. > >> > >> I'm curious as to why. oct and hex have different behavior in 3.0, > >> which is what I thought -3 was for. hex might be overkill, as the only > >> differences are the "L" and the __hex__ behavior. But oct is always > >> different. > > > > Well, yeah, but what are you going to do about it? Not use oct()? I > > expect that *most* programs using oct() or hex() will work just as > > well under 3.0; typically the output is just printed, not parsed or > > otherwise further processed. > > > > I think -3 should only warn about things where it's easy to modify the > > code so that it continues to work under 2.6 but will also work under > > 3.0. Forcing people to use "%o" just to get rid of the warning doesn't > > make sense to me.
> My thinking wast that using code that run under -3 without warnings > would work exactly the same under 3.0, after running through 2to3. That's wishful thinking. :) > So if oct() gave me a warning, I'd switch to the future_builtins version, > and do whatever it took to get my program running again under 2.6 (which > might involve not caring that the output changed from 2.5 to 2.6). > Maybe it's wishful thinking. I'm not too worried about this specific > case, either. I think practicality says we should not warn about this. -- --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
