Is this an over-sight, or by design? >>> string.atoi(u"1") ... TypeError: argument 1: expected string, unicode found It appears easy to support Unicode - there is already an explicit StringType check in these functions, and it simply delegates to int(), which already _does_ work for Unicode A patch would leave the following behaviour: >>> string.atio(u"1") 1 >>> string.atio(u"1", 16) ... TypeError: can't convert non-string with explicit base IMO, this is better than what we have now. I'll put together a patch if one is wanted... Mark.
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