[Greg Ewing]
> So, just add one general one:
>
> %m.nb
>
> with n being the base. If n defaults to 2, you can read the "b"
> as either "base" or "binary".
Except .n has a different meaning already for integer conversions:
>>> "%.5d" % 2
'00002'
>>> "%.10o" % 377
'0000000571'
>>>
It would be inconsistent to hijack it to mean something else here.
> Literals:
>
> 0b(5)21403 general
I've actually got no use for bases outside {2, 8, 10, 16), and have never
heard a request for them either, so I'd be at best -0. Better to stop
documenting the full truth about int() <0.9 wink>.
> 0b11001101 binary
+1.
> Conversion functions:
>
> base(x, n) general
-0, as above.
> bin(x) equivalent to base(x, 2) (for symmetry with
> existing hex, oct)
+1 if binary literals are added.
> Type slots:
>
> __base__(x, n)
Given the tenor of the above, add __bin__ and call it a day.
> Backwards compatibility measures:
>
> hex(x) --> base(x, 16)
> oct(x) --> base(x, 8)
> bin(x) --> base(x, 2)
>
> base(x, n) checks __hex__ and __oct__ slots for special cases
> of n=16 and n=8, falls back on __base__
>
> There, that takes care of integers. Anyone want to do the
> equivalent for floats ?-)
Note that C99 introduces a hex notation for floats.
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