"Thomas Wouters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/29/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A compromise is to do proper range checking as a warning, and do the > > modulo math anyway... but is that what we really want? > > > > I don't know about the rest of 'us', but that's what I want, yes: backward > compatibility, and a warning to tell people to fix their code 'or else'. The > prevalence of the warnings (outside of the stdlib) should give us a clue > whether to make it an exception in 2.6 or wait for 2.7/3.0. > > Perhaps more people could chime in? Am I being too anal about backward > compatibility here?
As a fairly heavy user of struct, I personally don't use struct to do modulos and/or sign manipulation (I mask before I pass), but a change in behavior seems foolish if people use that behavior. So far, I'm not aware of anyone complaining about Python 2.4's use, so it would seem to suggest that the current behavior is not incorrect. - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
