Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>Quoting
>>http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-November/050049.html:
>>
>>
>>>Python doesn't promise to return a postive integer for id(), although
>>>it may have been nicer if it did. It's dangerous to change that now,
>>>because some code does depend on the "32 bit-ness as a signed integer"
>>>accident of CPython's id() implementation on 32-bit machines. For
>>>example, code using struct.pack(), or code using one of ZODB's
>>>specialized int-key BTree types with id's as keys.
>
>
> All Tim was saying is that you can't /change/ builtin_id() because of
> backwards compatibiliity with Zope and struct.pack(). You are free to
> create a positive_id() function, and request its inclusion into builtins
> (low probability; people don't like doing that). Heck, you are even free
> to drop it in your local site.py implementation. But changing the
> current function is probably a no-no.
There's always the traditional response to "want to fix it but can't due to
backwards compatibility": a keyword argument that defaults to False.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at email.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
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