It never occured to me that str() would behave like int() for this
case. It makes complete sense to me that a factory for numbers would
ask about the base of the number. What would the base of a string be,
except in a few limited cases? str([1, 2], 4) doesn't make any sense.
You might argue that I wasn't all that bright as a beginner <0.5
wink>.
I think it shouldn't be changed, because the second positional
argument only works for a small number of the panoply types that can
be passed to str(). It would be fine to have a function for this
hiding somewhere, perhaps even as a method on numbers, but str() is
too generic.
Jeremy
On 1/16/06, Alex Martelli <aleaxit at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it finally time in Python 2.5 to allow the "obvious" use of, say,
> str(5,2) to give '101', just the converse of the way int('101',1)
> gives 5? I'm not sure why str has never allowed this obvious use --
> any bright beginner assumes it's there and it's awkward to explain
> why it's not!-). I'll be happy to propose a patch if the BDFL
> blesses this, but I don't even think it's worth a PEP... it's an
> inexplicable though long-standing omission (given the argumentative
> nature of this crowd I know I'll get pushback, but I still hope the
> BDFL can Pronounce about it anyway;-).
>
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jeremy%40alum.mit.edu
>
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