Antoine Pitrou writes: > Le vendredi 03 décembre 2010 à 13:58 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull a > écrit : > > Antoine Pitrou writes: > > > > > The legacy format argument looks like a red herring to me. When > > > converting from a format to another it is the programmer's job to > > > his/her job right. > > > > Uhmmmmmm, the argument *for* this "feature" proposed by several people > > is that Python's numeric constructors do it (right) so that the > > programmer doesn't have to. > > As far as I understand, Alexander was talking about a legacy pre-unicode > text format. We don't have to support this.
*I* didn't say we *should* support it. I'm saying that *others'* argument for not restricting the formats accepting by string to number converters to something well-defined and AFAIK universally understood by users (developers of Python programs *and* end-users) is that we *already* support this. Alexander, Martin, and I are basically just pointing out that no, the "support" we have via the built-in numeric constructors is incomplete and nonconforming. We feel that is a bug to be fixed by (1) implementing the definition as currently found in the documents, and (2) moving the non-ASCII support to another module (or, as a compromise, supporting non-ASCII digits via an argument to the built-ins -- that was my proposal, I don't know if Alexander or Martin would find it acceptable). Given that some committers (MAL, you?) don't even consider that accepting and converting a string containing digits from multiple scripts as a single number is a bug, I'd really rather that this bug/feature not be embedded in the interpreter. I suppose that as a built-in rather than syntax, technically it doesn't fall under the moratorium, but it makes me nervous.... _______________________________________________ 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