[Python-Dev] 32-bit values (was RE: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Lib/test test_zlib.py,1.18,1.19)
Guido van Rossum
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:51:20 -0400
> Subject: RE: [Python-Dev] 32-bit values (was RE: [Python-checkins]
> python/dist/src/Lib/test test_zlib.py,1.18,1.19)
> From: Tim Peters <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Guido van Rossum <email@example.com>
> Cc: PythonDev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:45:24 -0400
> > Such programs will have to be changed to use format code "L" instead.
> > I'm not following this. At least binascii.crc32() always
> > produces a 32-bit signed int now, so there's no *need* to use "L" now.
> > Are you saying that binascii.crc32() should be changed to return a
> > non-negative value always? Also the other xyz.abc32() functions?
> > Um, I thought *you* were proposing that! What else did you mean by
> > "It would sure be nice if they returned values in range(0, 2**32)
> > instead" ?
> I did suggest it, yes. Had you said "Such programs *would* have to be
> changed ...", my response would have been different. But you said "will",
> which reads like you already decided such a change will be made. Now it
> sounds like it's undecided (OK by me either way, I'm just trying to locate
> our current position on the map <wink>).
I responded to your specific example, which probably wasn't how you
intended to use it.
I really don't know what's the best return range for 32-bit checksums
given all the constraints. I'd leave this alone until we have decided
what to do with the other issues (like what to do with extensions that
use signed 32-bit values to represent masks now).
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)