On Oct 27, 10:27 am, Paul Hankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 27, 3:09 pm, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 27, 12:12 am, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote:> Matimus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The trailing L [for 'long' literals] is going away in Python 3.0. > > > > Yes. On the other hand, we are gaining '0bNNNN' for binary literals, > > > to go along with '0oNNNN' for octal and '0xNNNN' for hexadecimal. > > > > So, the original poster might get further by proposing an '0dNNN.NNN' > > > syntax for 'decimal.Decimal' literals. At least the syntax would be > > > consistent and wouldn't add a new punctuation character to the > > > language... > > > [snip] > > Some languages have or permit 0qNNNN or 0QNNNN for octal to reduce the > > chance of confusion of 'O' (oh) with '0' (zero) in uppercase, eg. > > 0Q123 is clearer than 0O123 (0 oh 123), although lowercase is better, > > eg. 0q123 or 0o123. > > Even clearer is not to allow octal literals :) Is there *any* use for > them?
The mode argument to os.chmod. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
