STINNER Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > It would be nicer if the OverflowError from _PyLong_NumBits > were propagated, so that the second case raises OverflowError > instead of giving an incorrect result
Why not, but I prefer your second proposition: return a long integer. Attached patch implements this solution. >>> x=1<<(2**31-1) >>> n=x.numbits(); n, n.numbits() (2147483648L, 32L) >>> x<<=(2**31-1) >>> n=x.numbits(); n, n.numbits() (4294967295L, 32L) >>> x<<=1 >>> n=x.numbits(); n, n.numbits() (4294967296L, 33L) # yeah! With my patch, there are two functions: - _PyLong_NumBits(long)->size_t: may overflow - long_numbits(long)->long: don't raise overflow error, but may raise other errors like memory error Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file11939/numbits-2.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3439> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
