Message115161
Unassigning myself from this one, though I'll review a patch if anyone wants to write one.
After thinking about it a bit, I'm -0 on allowing the extra whitespace. The main issue for me is that it opens up a can of worms about what should and shouldn't be allowed. Which of the following should be allowed:
(a) complex("0.1 + 3j")
(b) complex("+ 3j")
(c) complex("+ 3")
(d) float("- 3")
(e) int("+ 3")
(f) complex("+4.0 + -5.0j")
Any patch would presumably allow (a). (b) looks like it *should* be allowed, too, but then by analogy so does (c). But for consistency, (d) and (e) would then have to be allowed, and I *really* don't want to go that far; in particular, there are rules about what's allowed as a floating-point string that are fairly consistently applied throughout Python (e.g., in the float, Decimal and Fraction constructors); these rules also agree with accepted standards (e.g., C99, IEEE 754), which clearly don't allow a space between the optional sign and the body of the float.
So unless anyone particularly wants to pursue this, I'd suggest closing as "won't fix". |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-08-28 17:38:11 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, belopolsky, jdwhitley |
2010-08-28 17:38:11 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1283017091.41.0.0872431954949.issue9574@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-08-28 17:38:09 | mark.dickinson | link | issue9574 messages |
2010-08-28 17:38:08 | mark.dickinson | create | |
|