On 1/17/06, Guido van Rossum email@example.com wrote:
The difference between hex() and oct() and the proposed binary() is
I'd propose bin() to stay in line with the short abbreviated names.
Are these features used enough to have 3 builtins? Would format(number, base) suffice?
format(5, base=2) == '101' format(5, base=8) == '5' format(5, base=8, prefix=True) == '05' format(5, base=16) == '5' format(5, base=16, prefix=True) == '0x5'
Or something like that. Then there can be symmetry with int() (arbitrary bases) and we get rid of 2 other builtins eventually. Not sure if there are/should be uses other than number formating.
that hex() and oct() return valid Python expressions in that base. In order for it to make sense, Python would need to grow some syntax.
Fair enough. So let's define it.
If Python were to have syntax for binary literals, I'd propose a trailing b: "1100b". It would be convenient at times to represent bit flags, but I'm not sure it's worth the syntax change.
Typically, suffixes are used to indicated *types*: 12L, 12j, and even 12e0 in some sense.
The binary type should have a 0b prefix.
-0. Is this common enough to add (even in 3k)? For the instances I could have used this, it would have been completely impractical since the hex strings were generally over 80 characters.