Message 59069 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	gvanrossum
Recipients	ctl, gvanrossum
Date	2008-01-01.03:02:58
SpamBayes Score	0.09013854
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1199156578.79.0.145964567098.issue1716@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
On the one hand, if you want to format a float like that, you should use "%.0f". On the other hand, this should either consistently fail or succeed, not depending on how large the float is. I think in 2.6 we can't change this, but in 3.0, I propose that all these accept only integers. I find the behavior of %x and %o with floats particularly anti-intuitive. On the third hand, we're expecting % to be phased out in favor of .format(), which allows floats of any value with the i, d, o, x format specifiers. So perhaps we should leave this alone?

On the one hand, if you want to format a float like that, you should use
"%.0f".  On the other hand, this should either consistently fail or
succeed, not depending on how large the float is.

I think in 2.6 we can't change this, but in 3.0, I propose that all
these accept only integers.  I find the behavior of %x and %o with
floats particularly anti-intuitive.

On the third hand, we're expecting % to be phased out in favor of
.format(), which allows floats of any value with the i, d, o, x format
specifiers.  So perhaps we should leave this alone?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2008-01-01 03:02:58	gvanrossum	set	spambayes_score: 0.0901385 -> 0.09013854 recipients: + gvanrossum, ctl
2008-01-01 03:02:58	gvanrossum	set	spambayes_score: 0.0901385 -> 0.0901385 messageid: <1199156578.79.0.145964567098.issue1716@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2008-01-01 03:02:58	gvanrossum	link	issue1716 messages
2008-01-01 03:02:58	gvanrossum	create