Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork32k
gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate#100436
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)- Better describe handling of leading zeros and unicode digits- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer literal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Thanks for this PR! Looks good so far, but I think we might need a second pass before it's ready to go in. I've left some comments - discussion welcome!
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated
| 8, 10, or 16, and so that ``int('010', 0)`` is not legal, while | ||
| ``int('010')`` is, as well as ``int('010', 8)``. | ||
| :class:`bytes`, or :class:`bytearray` instance representing an integer | ||
| literal in radix *base*. Optionally, the literal can be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Now that we're no longer linking to the Python grammar, I think we could drop the use ofliteral, which is somewhat misleading. For the first use,[ ...] representing an integer in radix *base* [...] seems clear enough. But other uses might require some more reworking below, though. Rather than expressing in words, it may be clearest to re-introduce a formal grammar production, analogous to what's now in thefloat description. (Maybe with "digit" as a terminal, where valid digits are then expressed in text.)
Without the link to the grammar, we're also missing information about the rules for underscores. (I'm not suggesting putting that link back in, but rather, finding a way to include the information about underscores in this text.)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
hauntsaninja commentedJan 1, 2023 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Thanks for the feedback! Good catch on the underscores. I've made changes to address all your points, except that I haven't added a grammar production. I'm a little hesitant to add one, because I think describing the differences between bases might cause it to be a little long winded in a not especially helpful fashion. If the latest update still feels misleading or is missing detail, I can add one :-) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
LGTM, modulo fixing a missing word in one of the sentences (see comment below).
Thank you!
Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated
| default *base* is 10. The allowed bases are 0 and 2--36. Base-2, -8, and -16 | ||
| strings can be optionally prefixed with ``0b``/``0B``, ``0o``/``0O``, or | ||
| ``0x``/``0X``, as with integer literals in code. For base 0, the string is | ||
| interpreted in a similar to an :ref:`integer literal in code <integers>`, in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Missing a word here? Maybe "in a similar way", or "in a similar manner", or just "similarly"
Sure, either way seems fine. For me, if I were writing this I'd use a grammar production primarily out of laziness - if I'm describing what's happening in English text, I have to examine that text every which way for possible ambiguities, sources of potential reader misunderstanding and imprecisions; with a grammar production, it takes less work to be confident that it expresses the legal syntax clearly and unambiguously. |
Thanks@hauntsaninja for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.11. |
bedevere-bot commentedJan 2, 2023
GH-100674 is a backport of this pull request to the3.11 branch. |
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer literal.(cherry picked from commitedfbf56)Co-authored-by: Shantanu <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>
bedevere-bot commentedJan 2, 2023
GH-100675 is a backport of this pull request to the3.10 branch. |
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer literal.(cherry picked from commitedfbf56)Co-authored-by: Shantanu <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer literal.(cherry picked from commitedfbf56)Co-authored-by: Shantanu <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer literal.(cherry picked from commitedfbf56)Co-authored-by: Shantanu <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>
Following discussion inhttps://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5This tests some of the things documented inpython#100436
Following discussion inhttps://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5This tests some of the things documented in#100436Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>
Following discussion inhttps://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5This tests some of the things documented inpython#100436(cherry picked from commit69bc86c)Co-authored-by: Shantanu <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>
Improve int test coverage (GH-104024)Following discussion inhttps://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5This tests some of the things documented in#100436(cherry picked from commit69bc86c)Co-authored-by: Shantanu <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.