Alas, Guido and I have the same ISP (@home), and its mail server has been dead all day. Conveniently <snort>, my other ISP (MSN) coincidentally stopped letting me send email over my cable connection too. [Guido] > I just skimmed the pipermail python-dev archives and found one item > to pronounce on: what "%o" should do with negative longs. I agree > with Tim. Also for "%x". Reason: this matches oct() and hex(). Good point! > >>> oct(-10L) > '-012L' > >>> oct(-10) > '037777777766' Note that this string varies across platforms. > >>> hex(-10L) > '-0xAL' > >>> hex(-10) > '0xfffffff6' Ditto. > >>> > > Compatibility be damned (in this case). This became SF bug 123859, and has been closed. Current CVS does: >>> "%#o" % -10L '-012' >>> "%#X" % -10L '-0XA' >>> > (One could argue that for plain ints, the same result are > desirable; however when these are used as bitmasks, I as human > reader prefer to see '0xfffffff6' rather than '-0xA'. Ah the > insanity of consistency!) I doubt that we're done with this forever: we're moving in the direction of erasing user-visible distinctions between ints and longs. For bitmask output, we should probably introduce a new format code. Fred, I see that you complained about Finn's output examples, but didn't say why (just "they both look incorrect"). Were you hallucinating, or do you have a legit complaint?
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