On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Eric Smith firstname.lastname@example.org 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.