Raymond Hettinger wrote: > I thought the whole point of 3.0 was a recognition that all that > doubling-up was a bad thing and to be rid of it. Why make the > situation worse? ISTM that we need two versions of oct() like > we need a hole in the head. Heck, there's potentially a case to be > made that we don't need oct() at all. IIRC, unix permissions like > 0666 were the only use case that surfaced. Postgres bytea coercion is a frequent use case for oct() in my world. But I agree we don't need two versions. Robert Brewer fumanchu at aminus.org
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