It should *definitely* *not* be the str() constructor, which is already overloaded. Remember str() takes arguments of *any* type. Overloading variants on the conversion to string via arguments to str() doesn't scale. On 10/31/07, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/31/07, Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de> wrote:
Python's int type has an optional argument base which allows people to specify a base for the conversion of a string to an integer.
int('101', 2) 5 int('a', 16) 10
I've sometimes missed a way to reverse the process. How would you like an optional second argument to str() that takes an int from 2 to 36?
str(5, 2) '101' str(10, 16) 'a'
I know it's not a killer feature but it feels right to have a complement. How do you like the idea?
This was discussed before:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059789.html
Seemed like people liked the concept, but there was a fair debate about syntax (should it be the str constructor, should it be an int method, etc.)
Steve -- I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)