Message 57042 - 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	teoliphant
Recipients	facundobatista, ggenellina, teoliphant
Date	2007-11-01.22:29:05
SpamBayes Score	0.3220422
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1193956145.96.0.631396387437.issue1742669@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
I have two issues with this patch: 1) I'm not sure it's that bad to need to use '%d' % long(obj) to ensure conversion to a long integer. 2) If this kind of auto-conversion is deemed useful, then the patch itself is rather complicated. I would re-factor so that the same code is not repeated once in the PyNumber_Check and again in the original PyLong_Check and else clauses. Simply check for PyNumber. Then, if not already an int or a long, convert to int first and then long if that creates an error. Then, excecute the two segments of code for int and long objects.

I have two issues with this patch:

1) I'm not sure it's that bad to need to use '%d' % long(obj) to ensure
conversion to a long integer.

2) If this kind of auto-conversion is deemed useful, then the patch
itself is rather complicated.   I would re-factor so that the same code
is not repeated once in the PyNumber_Check and again in the original
PyLong_Check and else clauses.  Simply check for PyNumber.  Then, if not
already an int or a long, convert to int first and then long if that
creates an error.  Then, excecute the two segments of code for int and
long objects.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2007-11-01 22:29:06	teoliphant	set	spambayes_score: 0.322042 -> 0.3220422 recipients: + teoliphant, facundobatista, ggenellina
2007-11-01 22:29:05	teoliphant	set	spambayes_score: 0.322042 -> 0.322042 messageid: <1193956145.96.0.631396387437.issue1742669@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2007-11-01 22:29:05	teoliphant	link	issue1742669 messages
2007-11-01 22:29:05	teoliphant	create