Mark Dickinson added the comment: > I suspect that literal_eval, on the other hand, should reproduce what the > interpreter does
I think that's going to be awkward to achieve without making the behaviour of literal_eval significantly less obvious and more DWIMmy. And I'm not convinced that `literal_eval` should follow the behaviour of the complex constructor rather than the behaviour of plain `eval`. Of course, the "right" fix here is to change the complex repr entirely so that it looks like the compound object that it is rather than an eval-able expression: >>> repr(1+2j) complex(1.0, 2.0) That would break backwards compatibility, but given the number of times complaints come up on this tracker, I'm beginning to think it might be worth it. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27363> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
