Message69671
| Author | rhettinger |
|---|---|
| Recipients | alexandre.vassalotti, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, gvanrossum, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2008-07-15.02:28:51 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.0016193901 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1216088935.03.0.545070409039.issue3008@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
The patch looks good. I would coded hex_from_char() using a lookup
into "0123456789abcdef" which uses no unpredicatable branches.
Likewise, I would done hex_from_char() with a case statement (limiting
the call to single unpredicatable branch).
Question: are the ("0x0p+0") and ("-0x0p+0") special cases standard?
The docs need a "new in py2.6"
Coding style: move the inner si++ to a separate line so there are no
side-effects and the order of execution is obvious.
Question: should the "inf" string checks be made case sensitive on
insensitive? Is there a standard? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-07-15 02:28:55 | rhettinger | set | spambayes_score: 0.00161939 -> 0.0016193901 recipients: + rhettinger, gvanrossum, terry.reedy, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, belopolsky, pitrou, alexandre.vassalotti |
| 2008-07-15 02:28:55 | rhettinger | set | spambayes_score: 0.00161939 -> 0.00161939 messageid: <1216088935.03.0.545070409039.issue3008@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-07-15 02:28:53 | rhettinger | link | issue3008 messages |
| 2008-07-15 02:28:52 | rhettinger | create | |