Proposal: Decimal literals in Python.

Dan Bishop danb_83 at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 27 18:16:51 CEST 2007


On Oct 27, 10:27 am, Paul Hankin <paul.han... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 3:09 pm, MRAB <goo... at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 12:12 am, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-s... at benfinney.id.au>
> > wrote:> Matimus <mccre... at gmail.com> writes:
> > > > The trailing L [for 'long' literals] is going away in Python 3.0.
>
> > > Yes. On the other hand, we are gaining '0bNNNN' for binary literals,
> > > to go along with '0oNNNN' for octal and '0xNNNN' for hexadecimal.
>
> > > So, the original poster might get further by proposing an '0dNNN.NNN'
> > > syntax for 'decimal.Decimal' literals. At least the syntax would be
> > > consistent and wouldn't add a new punctuation character to the
> > > language...
>
> > [snip]
> > Some languages have or permit 0qNNNN or 0QNNNN for octal to reduce the
> > chance of confusion of 'O' (oh) with '0' (zero) in uppercase, eg.
> > 0Q123 is clearer than 0O123 (0 oh 123), although lowercase is better,
> > eg. 0q123 or 0o123.
>
> Even clearer is not to allow octal literals :) Is there *any* use for
> them?

The mode argument to os.chmod.




More information about the Python-list mailing list