Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Eric Smith > <eric+python-dev at trueblade.com> wrote: >> I've been double checking the PEP 3127 implementation in py3k and the >> backport I did to 2.6. The PEP says this about the % operator: >> >> "The string (and unicode in 2.6) % operator will have 'b' format >> specifier added for binary, and the alternate syntax of the 'o' option >> will need to be updated to add '0o' in front, instead of '0'." >> >> The %b operator was not added to 3.0, so I'll look into doing that in >> both 2.6 and 3.0 (which I opened as issue 2416). >> >> What should be done for '%#o' formatting in 2.6? The above sentence >> from the PEP implies it should be modified to add '0o' instead of '0', >> even in 2.6. But that seems like a bad idea to me. Maybe it should >> stay as-is, but add a -3 warning? Unfortunately, there'd be no way to >> change your code to get rid of the warning, short of switching to >> str.format() or adding a __future__ import (shudder). In 3.0, '%#o' >> already adds the leading '0o'. > > I think this is such a tiny detail we shouldn't bother with a -3 warning. > > I agree that in 2.6, %#o should continue to do what it does in 2.5. > Can you update the PEP? Done in r61845. Eric.
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