"Thomas Wouters" <thomas@python.org> wrote:
On 5/29/06, Bob Ippolito <bob@redivi.com> wrote:
A compromise is to do proper range checking as a warning, and do the modulo math anyway... but is that what we really want?
I don't know about the rest of 'us', but that's what I want, yes: backward compatibility, and a warning to tell people to fix their code 'or else'. The prevalence of the warnings (outside of the stdlib) should give us a clue whether to make it an exception in 2.6 or wait for 2.7/3.0.
Perhaps more people could chime in? Am I being too anal about backward compatibility here?
As a fairly heavy user of struct, I personally don't use struct to do modulos and/or sign manipulation (I mask before I pass), but a change in behavior seems foolish if people use that behavior. So far, I'm not aware of anyone complaining about Python 2.4's use, so it would seem to suggest that the current behavior is not incorrect. - Josiah