[Python-3000] String literal representation of integers (octal/binary discussion) (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Mon Mar 19 17:38:43 CET 2007

The point was not to reopen the discussion; we've had the discussion and the outcome is clear. The point was, what should be justified in the PEP.

On 3/18/07, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/18/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > Octal does need to be justified, since some people argued to remove > it. I guess binary needs to be justified because Thomas doesn't see > the need. :-)

I see literals for octal and binary as similar to raising a tuple, or automatically unpacking one in a function call. It can be useful, but it isn't needed very often. When it does show up, it can be confusing because it is so rare. If I were only worried about one program, I would prefer to write: >>> oct(78) == "0o116" rather than: >>> from math import oct >>> oct(78) == int("123", 8) The preference isn't really overwhelming, though, and the use isn't very frequent. This doesn't seem like a big enough win to justify any extra complexity in the language. (And no, I wouldn't add hex either, but not adding is different from removing.) -jJ

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list