On 1/16/06, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:54:05PM -0500, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > [...]
> >> That suggests that it would be better to simply add an int method:
> >>
> >> x.convert_to_base(7)
> >
> > This seems clear and simple to me. I like it. I strongly suspect
> > the "bright
> > beginners" Alex is interested in would have no trouble using it or
> > finding it.
>
> I don't know about that, all of the methods that int and long
> currently have are __special__. They'd really need to start with
> Python 2.5 (assuming int/long grow "public methods" in 2.5) to even
> think to look there. A format code or a built-in would be more
> likely to be found, since that's how you convert integers to hex and
> oct string representations with current Python.
>
> >>> [name for name in dir(0)+dir(0L) if not name.startswith('__')]
If a method is the best solution, then fine, 2.5 is the beginning of
methods on int/long. We could do a static method like
int.from_str("101", 2) and str.from_int(5, 2) if people don't like the
overloading of the constructors. Otherwise add methods like
'101'.to_int(2) or 5 .to_str(2) .
-Brett
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