Greg Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 May 2000, Christian Tismer wrote:
> >...
> > > So long as negative literals don't exist in the grammar, "-2147483648" makes
> > > no sense on a 2's-complement machine with 32-bit C longs. There isn't "a
> > > problem" here worth fixing, although if there is <wink>, it will get fixed
> > > by magic as soon as Python ints and longs are unified.
> >
> > I'd change the grammar.
>
> That would be very difficult, with very little positive benefit. As Mark
> said, use 0x80000000 if you want that number.
>
> Consider that the grammar would probably want to deal with things like
> - 1234
> or
> -0xA
>
> Instead, the grammar sees two parts: "-" and "NUMBER" without needing to
> complicate the syntax for NUMBER.
Right. That was the reason for my first, dumb, proposal:
Always interpret a number as negative and negate it once more.
That makes it positive. In a post process, remove double-negates.
This leaves negations always where they are allowed: On negatives.
ciao - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@appliedbiometrics.com>
Applied Biometrics GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.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