[Python-Dev] future_builtins
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Sat Feb 23 21:52:23 CET 2008
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Eric Smith
<eric+python-dev at trueblade.com> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Eric Smith
> > <eric+python-dev at trueblade.com> wrote:
> >> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> > I don't think a -3 warning for oct or hex would do any good.
> >>
> >> I'm curious as to why. oct and hex have different behavior in 3.0,
> >> which is what I thought -3 was for. hex might be overkill, as the only
> >> differences are the "L" and the __hex__ behavior. But oct is always
> >> different.
> >
> > Well, yeah, but what are you going to do about it? Not use oct()? I
> > expect that *most* programs using oct() or hex() will work just as
> > well under 3.0; typically the output is just printed, not parsed or
> > otherwise further processed.
> >
> > I think -3 should only warn about things where it's easy to modify the
> > code so that it continues to work under 2.6 but will also work under
> > 3.0. Forcing people to use "%o" just to get rid of the warning doesn't
> > make sense to me.
> My thinking wast that using code that run under -3 without warnings
> would work exactly the same under 3.0, after running through 2to3.
That's wishful thinking. :)
> So if oct() gave me a warning, I'd switch to the future_builtins version,
> and do whatever it took to get my program running again under 2.6 (which
> might involve not caring that the output changed from 2.5 to 2.6).
> Maybe it's wishful thinking. I'm not too worried about this specific
> case, either.
I think practicality says we should not warn about this.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list