On Jan 18, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > On 1/18/06, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I'd propose bin() to stay in line with the short abbreviated names. >>> >>> There has been some previous discussion about removing hex()/oct() >> from >>> builtins for Python 3.0, IIRC. I sure don't think bin() belongs >> there. >> >> Perhaps introduce a single function, base(val, radix=10, >> prefix=''), as >> a universal base converter that could replace bin(), hex(), oct(), >> etc. >> >> That would give us fewer builtins and provide an inverse for all the >> int() conversions (i.e. arbitrary bases). Also, it would allow an >> unprefixed output which is what I usually need. > > +1. Differs from Neal's format() function by not magically > determining the prefix from the radix which I like.
I'm not sure I see the advantage of, say, print base(x, radix=2, prefix='0b') versus print '0b'+base(x, radix=2) IOW, if the prefix needs to be explicitly specified anyway, what's the advantage of specifying it as an argument to base, rather than just string-concatenating it? Apart from that quibble, the base function appears to cover all the use cases for my proposed str-with-base, so, since it appears to attract less arguments, I'm definitely +1 on it. Alex _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
