Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> I'd propose bin() to stay in line with the short abbreviated names.
>>> There has been some previous discussion about removing hex()/oct()
>> from
>>> builtins for Python 3.0, IIRC. I sure don't think bin() belongs
>> there.
>>
>> Perhaps introduce a single function, base(val, radix=10, prefix=''), as
>> a universal base converter that could replace bin(), hex(), oct(), etc.
>>
>> That would give us fewer builtins and provide an inverse for all the
>> int() conversions (i.e. arbitrary bases). Also, it would allow an
>> unprefixed output which is what I usually need.
>>
>
> +1. Differs from Neal's format() function by not magically
> determining the prefix from the radix which I like.
+1 here, too, particularly if hex/oct acquire Deprecation (or even just
PendingDeprecation) warnings at the same time.
I have my own reason for wanting to avoid the name format() - I'd still like
to see it used one day to provide a builtin way to use string.Template syntax
for arbitrary string formatting.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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