RetroSearch Browse

Mon May 29 20:11:59 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-May/065350.html

"Thomas Wouters" <thomas at python.org> wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
> >
> > A compromise is to do proper range checking as a warning, and do the
> > modulo math anyway... but is that what we really want?
> >
> 
> I don't know about the rest of 'us', but that's what I want, yes: backward
> compatibility, and a warning to tell people to fix their code 'or else'. The
> prevalence of the warnings (outside of the stdlib) should give us a clue
> whether to make it an exception in 2.6 or wait for 2.7/3.0.
> 
> Perhaps more people could chime in? Am I being too anal about backward
> compatibility here?

As a fairly heavy user of struct, I personally don't use struct to do
modulos and/or sign manipulation (I mask before I pass), but a change in
behavior seems foolish if people use that behavior.  So far, I'm not
aware of anyone complaining about Python 2.4's use, so it would seem to
suggest that the current behavior is not incorrect.

 - Josiah

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-May/065350.html below:

[Python-Dev] test_gzip/test_tarfile failure om AMD64