On Sun, Mar 31, 2002, Alex Martelli wrote: > > Back on March 10 in the thread on PEP 285 Guido wrote: > > """ > This is a very general rule that I like a lot: that the type of a > result should only depend on the type of the arguments, not on their > values. I expect that this rule will make reasoning about programs > (as in PsyCo or PyChecker) easier to do. > """ > > And yet...: > > >>> type(2**10) > <type 'int'> > >>> type(2**100) > <type 'long'> > > ...doesn't this apply to many operators on ints in 2.2? Yet _another_ > (set of) exception(s) with practicality beating purity? Perhaps, but if a > "very general rule" has so many exceptions in frequent and fundamental > cases, is it a rule at all...? Channeling Guido: this isn't an "exception", this is a phased step in the progress toward unifying ints and longs. Eventually, the distinction will go away except for explicitly declared platform ints, and an overflow error on a platform int will once again raise an exception rather than transforming automatically. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
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