On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:54:58 -0800, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone else think that 173.binary() should be legal? Currently the
> preparser mangles it into a syntax error, it thinks the dot is a
> decimal point. One currently needs to do (173).binary() instead.
This question comes up somewhat regularly.
A very relevant fact is that in normal un-prepared non-SAGE Python,
accessing
a method of an integer literal is considered a Syntax error:
sha:~ was$ python
Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Nov 25 2006, 00:28:53)
[GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> n = 5
>>> n.__add__(7)
12
>>> 5.__add__(7)
File "<stdin>", line 1
5.__add__(7)
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
