[Python-3000] Fwd: Re: Octal (original) (raw)

Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org
Wed Mar 14 21:59:36 CET 2007

On 3/14/07, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/14/07, Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> wrote: > > > On 3/14/07, Raymond Hettinger <python at rcn.com> wrote: > > - In 3.0, we don't want an exception. > > Eh, no, you might not want one, but I most assuredly do want an exception. > Having formerly-octal literals suddenly give wrong results would be much > more of a stumbling block than having them in the first place, especially > considering we forgot to change all the other languages out there. An > exception can make the difference between '0t60' and '60' clear in a single > message, not to mention refuse the temptation to guess. Sorry, but could you explain why having the -py3k flag raise the exception for your 2.X code wouldn't be sufficient? Is it because you expect your fingers will continue to type 0660 instead of 0t660 when you're writing Python 3000 code?

Not just me. The world. This isn't a "re-educate people used to a wart in Python 2.x" kind of thing. This is a "re-educate new programmers coming from other languages" kind of thing. The stuff we warn about with -Wpy3k in Python 2.6 is stuff that is a change in how Python 3.0 does things compared to 2.x. This isn't just a change compared to 2.6, this is a change compared to quite a lot of popular programming languages out there.

-- Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20070314/471d7af0/attachment.htm

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list