gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate #100436

hauntsaninja · 2022-12-22T20:37:44Z

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

- 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.

mdickinson

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!

Doc/library/functions.rst

mdickinson · 2022-12-29T11:49:00Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

-   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


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.)

Doc/library/functions.rst

hauntsaninja · 2023-01-01T08:42:41Z

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 :-)

mdickinson

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

Thank you!

mdickinson · 2023-01-01T10:41:30Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

+   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


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

mdickinson · 2023-01-01T12:01:33Z

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.

miss-islington · 2023-01-02T03:14:21Z

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

bedevere-bot · 2023-01-02T03:14:34Z

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

- 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 <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>

bedevere-bot · 2023-01-02T03:14:39Z

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

- 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 <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>

Following discussion in https://discuss.python.org/t/bug-in-int-42/26360/5 This tests some of the things documented in python#100436

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 <greg@krypto.org>

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 <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>

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 <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>

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 added awaiting core review docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news labels Dec 22, 2022

hauntsaninja added needs backport to 3.10 only security fixes needs backport to 3.11 only security fixes labels Dec 22, 2022

further clarify unicode decimal digit

08ef087

hauntsaninja requested a review from mdickinson December 24, 2022 04:30

mdickinson mentioned this pull request Dec 24, 2022

gh-100428: Make float documentation more accurate #100437

Merged

mdickinson reviewed Dec 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

hauntsaninja added 2 commits January 1, 2023 01:32

address feedback, except for adding a formal grammar

231574a

phrasing nitpick

d773d7f

mdickinson approved these changes Jan 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

bedevere-bot added awaiting merge and removed awaiting core review labels Jan 1, 2023

add missing word

e7ba3a9

hauntsaninja merged commit edfbf56 into python:main Jan 2, 2023

bedevere-bot removed the awaiting merge label Jan 2, 2023

hauntsaninja deleted the gh-100428-int branch January 2, 2023 03:14

bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.11 only security fixes label Jan 2, 2023

bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.10 only security fixes label Jan 2, 2023

hauntsaninja added a commit to hauntsaninja/cpython that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2023

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 mentioned this pull request Apr 30, 2023

Improve int test coverage #104024

Merged

miss-islington mentioned this pull request May 1, 2023

[3.11] Improve int test coverage (GH-104024) #104026

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate #100436

gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate #100436

hauntsaninja commented Dec 22, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mdickinson left a comment

mdickinson Dec 29, 2022

hauntsaninja commented Jan 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mdickinson left a comment

mdickinson Jan 1, 2023

mdickinson commented Jan 1, 2023

miss-islington commented Jan 2, 2023

bedevere-bot commented Jan 2, 2023

bedevere-bot commented Jan 2, 2023

gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate #100436

gh-100428: Make int documentation more accurate #100436

Conversation

hauntsaninja commented Dec 22, 2022 • edited Loading

mdickinson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mdickinson Dec 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hauntsaninja commented Jan 1, 2023 • edited Loading

mdickinson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mdickinson Jan 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mdickinson commented Jan 1, 2023

miss-islington commented Jan 2, 2023

bedevere-bot commented Jan 2, 2023

bedevere-bot commented Jan 2, 2023

hauntsaninja commented Dec 22, 2022 •

edited

Loading

hauntsaninja commented Jan 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading