> From: Guido van Rossum [mailto:guido@python.org] >=20 > It's quite unsettling: >=20 > >>> x =3D 0xffffffff > >>> x > -1 > >>> -x > 1 > >>> -(0xffffffff) > 1 > >>> -0xffffffff=20 > -4294967295L <<<<-------- !!! > >>>=20 This is my main concern - that there is an inconsistency between = -(0xffffffff) and -0xffffffff. I think whatever is decided, this inconsistency should be fixed for 2.3 = (and possibly back-ported to 2.2). So we end up with either 0xffffffff =3D=3D -1 -0xffffffff =3D=3D 1 or 0xffffffff =3D=3D 4294967295L -0xffffffff =3D=3D -4294967295L and 0xffffffff is going to stay as -1 until 2.4 ... Tim Delaney
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