Jim Jewett wrote:
> I would write it as
>
> # Create a record-size pad outside the loop
> pad = " "*length
> ...
> seq = (seq+pad)[:length]
I'd generally do padding to a fixed length that way as well, but any code
relying on the current 'clip to 0' behaviour would break if this changed.
Without a really compelling reason to change it, it's hard to justify any
breakage at all (even if there may be better ways of doing things).
While I take your point about the comparison to __index__, the difference is
that clipping sequence repetition to 0 has been the expected behaviour for
many releases, whereas in the __index__ overflow case the expected behaviour
was for the code to raise an exception.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
