Robert Brewer wrote: > Raymond Hettinger wrote: >> I thought the whole point of 3.0 was a recognition that all that >> doubling-up was a bad thing and to be rid of it. Why make the >> situation worse? ISTM that we need two versions of oct() like >> we need a hole in the head. Heck, there's potentially a case to be >> made that we don't need oct() at all. IIRC, unix permissions like >> 0666 were the only use case that surfaced. > > Postgres bytea coercion is a frequent use case for oct() in my world. > But I agree we don't need two versions.
Unless you're trying to write code to work with both 2.6 and 3.0. _______________________________________________ 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
