Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment:
Out of date for 2.x.
--
resolution: - out of date
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7335
___
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
I agree with the 'should' (behave same way), but changing nothing will
break no code. Given that the purpose of 2.7 is to aid 3.x migration, an
argument could be made for matching the 3.x behavior.
--
nosy: +tjreedy
New submission from Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com:
In Python 2.x we have:
%.0d % 0
''
%.0d % 0L
'0'
In Python 3.x:
%.0d % 0
'0'
I think the 2.x behaviour for int comes directly from C's sprintf
behaviour: section 7.19.6.1, p8 of the C99 standard says:
The result of converting a
Changes by Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com:
--
title: int/long discrepancy when formatting zero with .0d - int/long
discrepancy when formatting zero with %.0d
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7335
