Do we care about this (after your checkin and with my fix to make 32-63 bit values ints rather than longs): # 64 bit box >>> minint = str(-sys.maxint - 1) >>> minint '-9223372036854775808' >>> eval(minint) -9223372036854775808 >>> eval('-(%s)' % minint[1:]) -9223372036854775808L n -- On 7/9/06, Neil Schemenauer <nas at arctrix.com> wrote: > The bug was reported by Armin in SF #1333982: > > the literal -2147483648 (i.e. the value of -sys.maxint-1) gives > a long in 2.5, but an int in <= 2.4. > > I have a fix but I wonder if it's the right thing to do. I suppose > returning a long has the chance of breaking someone code. Here's > the test we currently have for a related case: > > [...] > # 32-bit machine > all_one_bits = '0xffffffff' > self.assertEqual(eval(all_one_bits), 4294967295L) > self.assertEqual(eval("-" + all_one_bits), -4294967295L) > > I guess I would add self.assertTrue(isinstance(eval("-2147483648"), int)) > to that set of tests. > > Neil > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/nnorwitz%40gmail.com >
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