[Neil Schemenauer] > The bug was reported by Armin in SF #1333982: > > the literal -2147483648 (i.e. the value of -sys.maxint-1) gives > a long in 2.5, but an int in <= 2.4.
That actually depends on how far back you go. It was also a long "at the start". IIRC, Fred or I added hackery to make it an int, because back then there was a sharp distinction between int and long and a surprising number of people complained about this case. Strictly speaking, -2147483648 is not an integer literal (see the grammar -- Python has only positive integer literals). > I have a fix but I wonder if it's the right thing to do. Practicality beats purity here, IMO -- +1. > I suppose returning a long has the chance of breaking someone code. Here's > the test we currently have for a related case: > > [...] > # 32-bit machine > all_one_bits = '0xffffffff' > self.assertEqual(eval(all_one_bits), 4294967295L) > self.assertEqual(eval("-" + all_one_bits), -4294967295L) > > I guess I would add self.assertTrue(isinstance(eval("-2147483648"), int)) > to that set of tests. Or, more obscure but maybe better (since this also tests the similar endcase on sizeof(long) == 8 boxes): minint = -sys.maxint-1 self.assert_(isinstance(minint, int)) self.assert_(isinstance(eval(str(minint)), int)) _______________________________________________ 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