Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > [David Abrahams] >> The following change in behavior is causing one of my tests to fail. > > Dear Lord, another buggy test <wink>. > >> Is it intentional? > > Yes, as part of the ongoing push toward int/long unification. If you tried > the same test in Python 2.1, it would have blown up in the "sys.maxint * 2" > part. In 2.2, it blows up in the "int()" part. In 2.3, it doesn't blow up > at all. In 2.4 or 2.5, __builtin__.int and __builtin__.long may well be the > same object. Yes, but in the meantime, PyInt_AS_LONG( invoke_int_conversion(x) ) might be a crash instead of raising an exception. That's what is causing my test to fail. I guess I just need to lowercase a few characters, but it's worth noting that this change breaks existing extension module code. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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