hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
thanks,
Stef Mientki
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 10/29/08, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
09 is not a valid octal number. Instead use 011.
Ok, I guess you were not aware that prefixing a number with a '0'
would cause python to parse it as an octal and now you know.
thanks,
Stef
Guilherme Polo wrote:
On 10/29/08, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
09 is not a valid octal number. Instead use 011.
Ok, I guess you were not aware that prefixing a number with a '0'
would cause python to parse it as an octal and now
On Oct 29, 2:44 pm, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guilherme Polo wrote:
On 10/29/08, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
09 is not a valid octal number. Instead use 011.
Ok, I guess you were not aware that prefixing a number
Stef Mientki schrieb:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
because numbers starting with 0 are an octal value, allowing only the
literals 0-7.
Diez
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
2008/10/29 Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
Because leading zero means that the number is octal, and there is no 9
among octal digits. :)
thanks,
Stef Mientki
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
Wbr, Andrii Mishkovskyi
Stef Mientki wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
You have gotten the 2.x answer. In 3.0, 0b,0o,0x prefixes are valid and
required for binary, octal, and hexadecimal literals. 0digits is invalid.
tjr
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Oct 29, 4:25 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stef Mientki wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
You have gotten the 2.x answer. In 3.0, 0b,0o,0x prefixes are valid and
required for binary, octal, and hexadecimal literals. 0digits is invalid.
tjr
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:25 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stef Mientki wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
You have gotten the 2.x answer. In 3.0, 0b,0o,0x prefixes are valid and
required for binary, octal, and hexadecimal literals. 0digits is invalid.
tjr
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 29, 2:44 pm, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guilherme Polo wrote:
On 10/29/08, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
09 is not a valid octal number. Instead use
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:25 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stef Mientki wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
You have gotten the 2.x answer. In 3.0, 0b,0o,0x prefixes are valid and
required for binary, octal, and hexadecimal literals. 0digits is invalid.
except
On Oct 29, 4:17�pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mensanator �[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 29, 2:44�pm, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guilherme Polo wrote:
On 10/29/08, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
�Why gives k
Cameron Laird wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 29, 2:44 pm, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guilherme Polo wrote:
On 10/29/08, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
Why gives k = 09 a syntax error ?
09 is not a valid octal
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:17�pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird) wrote:
I contest that; my observation is that it's entirely an artifact
of legacy software,
Really? Don't they still use octal for this stuff?
$ ls -l
total 1717
-r-xr-x---+ 1 mensanator Users 57 Mar 29 2008
14 matches
Mail list logo
