RetroSearch Browse

Tue Dec 1 17:19:27 CET 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094395.html

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>>> I'd rather prefer to explicitly list what CPython assumes about the
>>> outcome of specific operations. If this is just about &, |, ^, and ~,
>>> then its fine with me.
>>
>> I'm not even interested in going this far:
>
> I still am: with your list of assumptions, it is unclear (to me, at
> least) what the consequences are. So I'd rather see an explicit list
> of consequences, instead of buying a pig in a poke.

Okay;  though I think that my list of assumptions is easier to check
directly for any given implementation:  it corresponds
exactly to items 2 and 4 in C99 J.3.5, and any conforming
C implementation is required to explicitly document how it
behaves with regard to these items.

I'm not sure how to decide which particular consequences
should be listed, but those for &, |, ^ and ~ could certainly
be included.

Mark

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094395.html below:

[Python-Dev] Drop support for ones' complement machines?