On 13.02.16 10:48, Georg Brandl wrote:
Following the same rules for placement, underscores will be allowed in
the following constructors:
- ``int()`` (with any base)
- ``float()``
- ``complex()``
- ``Decimal()``
What about float.fromhex()? Should underscores be allowed in it (I think
no)?
On 02/13/2016 12:10 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 13.02.16 10:48, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Following the same rules for placement, underscores will be allowed in
>> the following constructors:
>>
>> - ``int()`` (with any base)
>> - ``float()``
>> - ``complex()``
>> - ``Decimal()``
>
> What about
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 09:48:49AM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after talking to Guido and Serhiy we present the next revision
> of this PEP. It is a compromise that we are all happy with,
> and a relatively restricted rule that makes additions to PEP 8
> basically unnecessary.
>
>
On 2/13/2016 12:48 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Instead of the relatively strict rule specified above, the use of
underscores could be limited.
This sentence doesn't really make sense.
Either s/limited/more limited/
or s/limited/further limited/
or s/limited/relaxed/
Maybe the whole section should
On 02/13/2016 12:48 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
The remaining open question is about the reverse direction: do
we want a string formatting modifier that adds underscores as
thousands separators?
+0 Would be nice, but also wouldn't make much sense in other groupings.
Instead of the relatively
Hi all,
after talking to Guido and Serhiy we present the next revision
of this PEP. It is a compromise that we are all happy with,
and a relatively restricted rule that makes additions to PEP 8
basically unnecessary.
I think the discussion has shown that supporting underscores in
the
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 00:49 Georg Brandl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after talking to Guido and Serhiy we present the next revision
> of this PEP. It is a compromise that we are all happy with,
> and a relatively restricted rule that makes additions to PEP 8
> basically unnecessary.