>>>>> "OT" == Oren Tirosh <oren-py-d@hishome.net> writes:
OT> What's wrong with 0x950412de is that with a word width of 32
OT> bits it is negative and therefore the invisible bits to the
OT> left are all set. With a word width of 64 bits or with an
OT> infinite width they are cleared.
My point is that if I write a hex constant I never think about it as a
negative number; it's always an unsigned bit pattern. I know Python
currently disagrees when the bit pattern is 32-bits in width and the
top bit is set, and that PEP 237 is the roadmap to get there from
here.
>>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes:
>> I'm trying to understand why hex constants > sys.maxint have to
>> deprecated.
GvR> Hm, maybe I should use a different warning category rather
GvR> than DeprecationWarning? Any suggestions?
I think that would help a lot, yes. We had a lively internal
discussion this morning about it and we came up with FutureWarning.
Maybe Guido will come up with a better name, but I don't think it
should be DeprecationWarning. The code that causes the warning isn't
being deprecated, its semantics are destined to be changed, and that
seems like an important distinction.
-Barry
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