GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate by hauntsaninja · Pull Request #100436 · python/cpython

Conversation

@hauntsaninja

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja commented Dec 22, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)
  • Better describe handling of leading zeros and unicode digits
  • Base 0 does not work "exactly" as like a code literal, since it allows unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer literal.
  • Issue: Float documentation doesn't allow int-like strings as valid arguments for float #100428

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@hauntsaninja
pythongh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate
6678637 
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it
  doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be
  explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)
- Better describe handling of leading zeros and unicode digits
- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows
  Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer
  literal.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot mentioned this pull request Dec 22, 2022
Float documentation doesn't allow int-like strings as valid arguments for float #100428
Closed
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added awaiting core review docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news labels Dec 22, 2022
@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja added needs backport to 3.10 needs backport to 3.11 only security fixes labels Dec 22, 2022
@hauntsaninja
further clarify unicode decimal digit
08ef087
@hauntsaninja
hauntsaninja requested a review from mdickinson December 24, 2022 04:30
@mdickinson mdickinson mentioned this pull request Dec 24, 2022
gh-100428: Make float documentation more accurate #100437
Merged
mdickinson
mdickinson reviewed Dec 29, 2022
View reviewed changes

@mdickinson mdickinson left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this PR! Looks good so far, but I think we might need a second pass before it's ready to go in. I've left some comments - discussion welcome!

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
Comment thread Doc/library/functions.rst Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Comment thread Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated
8, 10, or 16, and so that ``int('010', 0)`` is not legal, while
``int('010')`` is, as well as ``int('010', 8)``.
:class:`bytes`, or :class:`bytearray` instance representing an integer
literal in radix *base*. Optionally, the literal can be

@mdickinson mdickinson Dec 29, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now that we're no longer linking to the Python grammar, I think we could drop the use of literal, which is somewhat misleading. For the first use, [ ...] representing an integer in radix *base* [...] seems clear enough. But other uses might require some more reworking below, though. Rather than expressing in words, it may be clearest to re-introduce a formal grammar production, analogous to what's now in the float description. (Maybe with "digit" as a terminal, where valid digits are then expressed in text.)

Without the link to the grammar, we're also missing information about the rules for underscores. (I'm not suggesting putting that link back in, but rather, finding a way to include the information about underscores in this text.)

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
Comment thread Doc/library/functions.rst Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
hauntsaninja added 2 commits January 1, 2023 01:32
@hauntsaninja
address feedback, except for adding a formal grammar
231574a
@hauntsaninja
phrasing nitpick
d773d7f
@hauntsaninja

hauntsaninja commented Jan 1, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks for the feedback! Good catch on the underscores. I've made changes to address all your points, except that I haven't added a grammar production. I'm a little hesitant to add one, because I think describing the differences between bases might cause it to be a little long winded in a not especially helpful fashion. If the latest update still feels misleading or is missing detail, I can add one :-)
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
mdickinson
mdickinson approved these changes Jan 1, 2023
View reviewed changes

@mdickinson mdickinson left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, modulo fixing a missing word in one of the sentences (see comment below).

Thank you!

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
Comment thread Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated
default *base* is 10. The allowed bases are 0 and 2--36. Base-2, -8, and -16
strings can be optionally prefixed with ``0b``/``0B``, ``0o``/``0O``, or
``0x``/``0X``, as with integer literals in code. For base 0, the string is
interpreted in a similar to an :ref:`integer literal in code <integers>`, in

@mdickinson mdickinson Jan 1, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing a word here? Maybe "in a similar way", or "in a similar manner", or just "similarly"

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added awaiting merge and removed awaiting core review labels Jan 1, 2023
@mdickinson

mdickinson commented Jan 1, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

except that I haven't added a grammar production [...]

Sure, either way seems fine. For me, if I were writing this I'd use a grammar production primarily out of laziness - if I'm describing what's happening in English text, I have to examine that text every which way for possible ambiguities, sources of potential reader misunderstanding and imprecisions; with a grammar production, it takes less work to be confident that it expresses the legal syntax clearly and unambiguously.
hauntsaninja reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@hauntsaninja
add missing word
e7ba3a9
@hauntsaninja
hauntsaninja merged commit edfbf56 into python:main Jan 2, 2023
@miss-islington

miss-islington commented Jan 2, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks @hauntsaninja for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.11.
🐍🍒⛏🤖
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the awaiting merge label Jan 2, 2023
@hauntsaninja
hauntsaninja deleted the gh-100428-int branch January 2, 2023 03:14
@bedevere-bot

bedevere-bot commented Jan 2, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown

GH-100674 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.11 only security fixes label Jan 2, 2023
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2023
@hauntsaninja @miss-islington
pythongh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate (pythonGH-100436)
5a399bb 
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it
  doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be
  explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)
- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores
- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows
  Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer
  literal.
(cherry picked from commit edfbf56)

Co-authored-by: Shantanu <[email protected]>
@bedevere-bot

bedevere-bot commented Jan 2, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown

GH-100675 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.10 label Jan 2, 2023
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2023
@hauntsaninja @miss-islington
pythongh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate (pythonGH-100436)
73163a1 
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it
  doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be
  explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)
- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores
- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows
  Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer
  literal.
(cherry picked from commit edfbf56)

Co-authored-by: Shantanu <[email protected]>
miss-islington added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2023
@miss-islington @hauntsaninja
gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate (GH-100436)
c92c551 
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it
  doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be
  explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)
- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores
- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows
  Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer
  literal.
(cherry picked from commit edfbf56)

Co-authored-by: Shantanu <[email protected]>
miss-islington added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2023
@miss-islington @hauntsaninja
gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate (GH-100436)
af136e9 
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it
  doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be
  explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)
- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores
- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows
  Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer
  literal.
(cherry picked from commit edfbf56)

Co-authored-by: Shantanu <[email protected]>
hauntsaninja added a commit to hauntsaninja/cpython that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2023
@hauntsaninja
Improve int test coverage
df988c1 
Following discussion in https://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5

This tests some of the things documented in python#100436
@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja mentioned this pull request Apr 30, 2023
Improve int test coverage #104024
Merged
hauntsaninja added a commit that referenced this pull request May 1, 2023
@hauntsaninja @gpshead
Improve int test coverage (#104024)
69bc86c 
Following discussion in https://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5

This tests some of the things documented in #100436

Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <[email protected]>
@miss-islington miss-islington mentioned this pull request May 1, 2023
[3.11] Improve int test coverage (GH-104024) #104026
Merged
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request May 1, 2023
@hauntsaninja @gpshead @miss-islington
Improve int test coverage (pythonGH-104024)
2bee583 
Following discussion in https://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5

This tests some of the things documented in python#100436

(cherry picked from commit 69bc86c)

Co-authored-by: Shantanu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <[email protected]>
hauntsaninja added a commit that referenced this pull request May 1, 2023
@miss-islington @hauntsaninja @gpshead
[3.11] Improve int test coverage (GH-104024) (#104026)
2be3656 
Improve int test coverage (GH-104024)

Following discussion in https://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5

This tests some of the things documented in #100436

(cherry picked from commit 69bc86c)

Co-authored-by: Shantanu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

1 more reviewer
@mdickinson mdickinson mdickinson approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

4 participants

@hauntsaninja @mdickinson @miss-islington @bedevere-bot
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.