Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment:
[Raymond]
> I prefer what we have now. The language is consistent [...]
Agreed. I don't see value in having two different sets of rules, one for
numeric literals and one for explicit str-to-int conversions. And if we *were*
to adopt a different set of rules for str-to-int conversions, what would those
rules be? There are a lot of fairly arbitrary choices to make (whitespace
before/after/between sign and digits, digit sets, leading zeros, characters
permitted as signs, permissible digit separators).
The decision would be easier if there were a widespread standard that could
help us choose a particular ruleset, but I'm not aware of any such standard.
Much cleaner and simpler to have the rules for str-to-int match those for
numeric literal parsing. (And similarly for floats.)
[zd nex]
> I would suggest that it would be possible to strictly check strings [...]
As Serhiy pointed out, it already is possible, in a variety of ways. If you're
arguing for something like `int("+123", strict=True)`, you'd need to say
exactly what "strict=True" should mean, make a case that your particular choice
is sufficiently standard and useful to others to make it worth adding to core
Python, consider how it would interact with the "base" argument, and a whole
lot more. If you want to take that forward, I think that's something you'd need
to bring up on the python-ideas mailing list for further discussion. I'll close
here.
----------
nosy: +mark.dickinson
resolution: -> rejected
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue39956>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
