> On vrijdag, apr 18, 2003, at 01:14 Europe/Amsterdam, Guido van Rossum > wrote: > > I'll back out the change to 'h', which is the only incompatible change > > I can see (unless you consider accepting *more* than before an error). > > Thomas made no changes to 'l', so I'm not sure what that is about -- > > maybe the problem is with unsigned hex constants? > > Okay, great!! > > Is this a temporary measure, i.e. is the semantic change to 'h' > going to come back after 2.3 is out? I don't see why -- it always was a signed short, let it stay that way. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4