Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: Does anyone have time to review these patches? I think the first is straightforward, and I'm reasonably sure of the correctness of the second patch. I'm less sure that it's the right thing to do. The question is what should happen when pickling an integer using the LONG opcode (pickle protocol 0). The options are:
- append an 'L' on output in 3.x; accept input with and without trailing 'L'. This is what the patch does. The only downside is the continuing presence of the 'L' in 3.x, which some might object to. - don't append an 'L' on output in 3.x; accept input with and without trailing 'L'. This would retain compatilbiity, but would mean that we can get different output *for the same opcode* with 2.x and 3.x. I don't think there's a precedent for this, but I can't see why it would be harmful. Still, it seems safer not to do it. - don't append an 'L' on output in 3.x, and reject input with a trailing 'L' in 3.x. This would make 3.x and 2.x pickles incompatible with each other, and breaks some tests. Seems like a bad idea all around to me. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4842> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
