On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:20:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> We
> already have repr() if you want unambiguous output; str() is for
> pretty output.
BTW, does Python 3000 fix the problem that str(container) calls repr()
instead of str() for elements in the container?
Oleg.
--
Oleg
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:20:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > We
> > already have repr() if you want unambiguous output; str() is for
> > pretty output.
>
> BTW, does Python 3000 fix the problem that str(containe
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:44:34PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:20:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > We
> > > already have repr() if you want unambiguous output; str() is for
> > >
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>str([a, b, c]) currently does a wrong thing if items are non-ascii
> strings - calling repr() on them produces '\XXX' escapes instead of
> a readable representation.
But merely calling str() on the items instead of r
I think you're right, the whole thing ought to be rolled back. The
whole point of __index__ was that __int__ cannot be trusted not to
truncate floats or float-like types. (Or do other conversions e.g.
from string.)
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Trent Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Does
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Trent Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Does this mean that floats can now be used as list indexes?
> > > Preventing this was the motivation for introducing the nb_index slot.
> >
> > > from http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0357 ::
> > >
> > > The bigge
Agreed, in the middle of reverting the changes made in 62269 and 62279 now.
I've also figured out why getargs_n() is broken for Windows x64 for negative
values. I'll post a patch for review to python-3000@ shortly.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EM
I've proposed on another thread the no new features are added to %
formatting, specifically the PEP 3127 (Integer Literal Support and
Syntax) '%b' formatting. It didn't generate any discussion, so I
thought I'd bring it up in its own thread.
I'd like to see us take the position that % formatti
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've proposed on another thread the no new features are added to %
> formatting, specifically the PEP 3127 (Integer Literal Support and
> Syntax) '%b' formatting. It didn't generate any discussion, so I
> thought I'd bring
I reverted the changes from r62269 and r62279 in r62292. Any issues with the
following patch? Note the removal of the guards around case 'n'; this will be
the first time a lot of platforms will see this particular code path, as we're
not falling back to 'l' anymore.
Index: Python/getargs.c
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> I don't see the value in str(['1', 1, '1, [1]', '1]',
> '\n[1']) giving hard to understand output.
Random data point: Being forced to do some Ruby programming
recently, I found that Ruby does in fact produce just this
sort of ambiguous output when you print a list, and it'
-cc: python-dev
+cc: python-3000
Hi Haoyu,
I'm glad someone wanting to work on updating swig for python 3.x. A better
mailing list for python 3.x internals questions as you work on this is the
[email protected] list.
The first place I suggest looking when you have a question is in the Pyth
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Eric Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've proposed on another thread the no new features are added to %
> > formatting, specifically the PEP 3127 (Integer Literal Support and
> >
13 matches
Mail list logo
