> Hmmm I don't know if I like this. Well, I don't have any objections > to such a method being available, but I prefer the name "binary" to > have the current behaviour. It's more pythonic, like the hex function.
But there is no binary/bin function. I understand that __hex__ returns a string to obey Python conventions but binary() is our addition. Also, if you are after a binary representation of an integer in SAGE you probably want to do calculations with it, so a tuple/list/iterable of bits seems more natural to me. > BTW for the list format, I would prefer the least significant bit to > be listed first. This is more like the list() function for > polynomials, if you think of an integer as a polynomial in 2: > > eleven = 1*2^0 + 1*2^1 + 0*2^2 + 1*2^3 = [1, 1, 0, 1] I think when it comes to endianess we will have to agree to disagree. In the multivariate world and in all the we-do-some-stuff-to-bits crypto big endianess (MSB is left) wins over little endianess. But it seem to me SAGE tends towards little endianess alltogether so I will return it in little endian order. Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
