On 7/9/06, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 03:02:06PM -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> > Do we care about this (after your checkin and with my fix to make
> > 32-63 bit values ints rather than longs):
> >
> > # 64 bit box
> > >>>minint = str(-sys.maxint - 1)
> > >>
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 03:02:06PM -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> Do we care about this (after your checkin and with my fix to make
> 32-63 bit values ints rather than longs):
>
> # 64 bit box
> >>>minint = str(-sys.maxint - 1)
> >>>minint
> '-9223372036854775808'
> >>>eval(minint)
> -92233720368547
Do we care about this (after your checkin and with my fix to make
32-63 bit values ints rather than longs):
# 64 bit box
>>> minint = str(-sys.maxint - 1)
>>> minint
'-9223372036854775808'
>>> eval(minint)
-9223372036854775808
>>> eval('-(%s)' % minint[1:])
-9223372036854775808L
n
--
On 7/9/06, N
[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
I think it ought to be an int, like before.
--Guido
On 7/9/06, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> I have a fix but I wond
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.
I have a fix but I wonder if it's the right thing to do. I suppose
returning a long has the chance of breaking someone code. Here's
the test
