[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> committed/rejected status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: > Should I now revert my changes to 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3? Once committed, I would say leave it in as long as you're confident that no currently working code will break as a result. In general, be very conservative about backporting any behavioral change.

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: If PyPy gets away with a different behaviour, there's probably nobody relying on it, so I'd say the backports are safe. -- nosy: +pitrou ___ Python tracker ___

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Sorry, I have not noticed your advice before I did commit (it took me a lot of time). Should I now revert my changes to 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3? -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: Why did you backport this change after being advised not to do it? -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: > When this patch is updated because of the commit for issue 16790, in 3.x can > the edited test cases be moved to the top of the test class per the following > comment (as appropriate)? I will do this in issue16784. In any case I am going to move a large pa

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset c0266ba8e4c6 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '2.7': Issue #16761: Raise TypeError when int() or long() called with base argument only. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c0266ba8e4c6 New changeset e4ea38a92c4d by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.2': Issue

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: I don't think a backport is appropriate for this kind of change. -- nosy: +rhettinger versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3 ___ Python tracker _

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka : -- assignee: -> serhiy.storchaka ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Chris Jerdonek added the comment: When this patch is updated because of the commit for issue 16790, in 3.x can the edited test cases be moved to the top of the test class per the following comment (as appropriate)? http://bugs.python.org/issue16790#msg178282 As stated there, this will make sy

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Chris Jerdonek added the comment: Yes, it is a better approach. At first glance, the patches look okay to me. -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Let's eat an elephant piece by piece. Only one issue per patch. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Pyth

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Here is a patches which contains only minimal set of required changes. Other unrelated changes will be done in issue16784. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28439/int_without_x-2.7_3.patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28440/int_witho

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Chris Jerdonek added the comment: It's enough not to make the problem worse, which is why I suggested it and what I wanted to avoid. If you copy-paste the tests you're adding now, it worsens the problem and makes it that much more tedious to fix later on (and to maintain in the meantime). Wh

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Sharing only those tests is not enough. We must revise all tests and extract common code to the separated class. I think this is too large change and unrelated to this issue. I will open a new issue for int tests enhancement and refactoring. -- ___

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Chris Jerdonek added the comment: See this thread: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-December/123283.html -- ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: Having just looked added something to test_int as part of issue16772... There appears to be an explicit test _for_ this strange behavior in there: http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/60f7197f991f/Lib/test/test_int.py#l233 test_base_arg_with_no_x_arg I have no

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Chris Jerdonek added the comment: This is good work. Thanks. > I think merging test_int and test_long is hard task and should be done in > separated issue. I meant "share" rather than "merge." For the tests you're adding, isn't it simply a matter of putting the test cases into a separate mi

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Patches updated to address Cris's comments on Rietveld (thank you, Cris, for review). In additional new tests added. I think merging test_int and test_long is hard task and should be done in separated issue. Instead I have merged and simplified some test to

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Changes by Ezio Melotti : -- nosy: +ezio.melotti ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.py

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: In additional some int creation tests backported to old Python versions. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28416/int_without_x-2.7.patch ___ Python tracker __

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka : -- nosy: +asvetlov, chris.jerdonek, terry.reedy Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28415/int_without_x-3.2.patch ___ Python tracker ___

[issue16761] Fix int(base=X)

New submission from Serhiy Storchaka: Currently int() ignores base keyword argument if first string argument omitted. Such usage is no other than bug. The proposed patch raises TypeError in such case. See also discussion at Python-Dev: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.cvs/92290 .