Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes:
> > > > And it introduces incompatibilities.
> > >
> > > What kind? I thought it would be a new format code?
> >
> > Two new format codes ('k' and 'K'), and changes to existing format
> > codes - per your request:
> >
> > | How about the following counterproposal. This also changes some of the
> > | other format codes to be a little more regular.
> > |
> > | Code C type Range check
> > |
> > | b unsigned char 0..UCHAR_MAX
> > | B unsigned char none **
> > | h unsigned short 0..USHRT_MAX
> > | H unsigned short none **
> > | i int INT_MIN..INT_MAX
> > | I * unsigned int 0..UINT_MAX
> > | l long LONG_MIN..LONG_MAX
> > | k * unsigned long none
> > | L long long LLONG_MIN..LLONG_MAX
> > | K * unsigned long long none
> > |
> > | Notes:
> > |
> > | * New format codes.
> > |
> > | ** Changed from previous "range-and-a-half" to "none"; the
> > | range-and-a-half checking wasn't particularly useful.
>
> Oh of course. None to worry about IMO.
Well, implementing (and testing) these as the main part of the work,
and I'm at least halfway through.
Thomas
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