yaipa h. yaipa at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 10 03:57:03 EDT 2003

• Previous message (by thread): Disagree with proposed 2.4 behavior for %x formatting of signed i nts
• Next message (by thread): Disagree with proposed 2.4 behavior for %x formatting of signed i nts
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

bokr at oz.net (Bengt Richter) wrote in message news:<bjlqcl$m4g$0 at 216.39.172.122>...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:11:09 +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> 
> >Tim Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> You do not understand correctly.  This is what will happen:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>>>print "0x%08X" % -1041053949
> >> 
> >> 0x-3E0D38FD
> >
> >Actually, what *will* happen is
> >
> >-0x3E0D38FD
> >
> Really? In that case, would
> 
>      print "@#%08X" % -1041053949
> 
> produce
> 
>  -@#3E0D38FD
> ??

Sorry, but that sucks.

  --alan

> >
> >Indeed. You can still do all binary manipulations that you want to do.
> >
> But reasonably?
> 
> Regards,
> Bengt Richter

---

• Previous message (by thread): Disagree with proposed 2.4 behavior for %x formatting of signed i nts
• Next message (by thread): Disagree with proposed 2.4 behavior for %x formatting of signed i nts
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-list mailing list