Martin: > Before that happens, you might want to anticipate that problem, and > propose an implementation that means minimum changes for you - it then > will likely mean minimum changes for everybody else, as well. Perhaps > "k" isn't such a good solution, perhaps "I" is better, or perhaps "i" > should weaken its range checking, and emit a deprecationwarning when > an unsigned number is passed. The least amount of work for me would be caused by keeping "i" semantics as they are, of course. If we switch to "k" for integers in the range -2**-31..2**31-1 that would not be too much work, as a lot of the code is generated (I would take the quick and dirty approach of using k for all my integers). Only the hand-written code would have to be massaged by hand. If we have only pure signed and pure unsigned converters it would mean an extraordinary amount of work, but luckily it seems that that is not going to happen. On Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 02:34 , Guido van Rossum wrote: > Why is it so hard to get people to think about what they need? (I > mean beyond "I don't want anything to change" or vague things like > that. I am looking for an API that will make developers like Jack as > well as other extension developers happy, but it feels like pulling > teeth. It feels that way because pulling teeth is probably exactly the right analogy: what you're doing is probably a good idea in the long run, but right now it hurts... -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
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