On 2/23/2014 4:25 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > I agree that having only one decimal format code would be nice, or even > two if the second one did something different, and that three seems > completely over the top -- unfortunately, Python 3.4 still supports all > three (%d, %i, and %u). Not supporting two of them would just lead to > frustration. There is also no reason to exclude %o nor %x and making > the programmer reach for oct() and hex(). We're trying to simplify > %-interpolation, not garner exclamations of "What were they > thinking?!?" ;)
There are things that can be done with %o and %x that cannot be done with oct() and hex(), or at least cannot be done without a terrific amount of byte munging. For example: >>> '%#.4x' % 42 '0x002a' Not sure you'd ever need to do that in a wire protocol, but it's possible. Since one of the motivators of this feature is to make porting easier, I'd suggest fully supporting the numeric codes that are supported in 2.7. I do have some sympathy for the "change your code to a common 2.x-3.x subset" position. But since 2.7's -3 flag won't (and can't) warn you when you're doing something with %-formatting that's not support in 3.x, I think the user-friendliest approach is to support all of the numeric codes as completely as possible. Eric. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
