On Jun 28, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> >> 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. >>> oct(34) '042' >>> hex(34) '0x22' It just feels weird to me, even if we are adding binary() ourselves, to go against the grain here. Although, to make a point on your side, both the oct and hex functions return a representation which matches python's input syntax for octal and hex, and the binary string representation doesn't (and can't) do that. David --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
