Skip to content

PEP 786: Precision and Modulo-Precision Flag format specifiers for integer fields #4416

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 19 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

PEP 786: Precision and Modulo-Precision Flag format specifiers for integer fields #4416

wants to merge 19 commits into from

Conversation

jb2170
Copy link

@jb2170 jb2170 commented May 8, 2025 •
edited
Loading

New rebased PR with the correct branch name to avoid confusion (786 not 791).

Thank you Alyssa for sponsoring this!

Relevant discussions, issues, PRs linked

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

  • Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
  • File created from the latest PEP template
  • PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
  • Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
  • Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval: @ncoghlan
  • Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
  • PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate: Is a PEP-Delegate required?
  • Required sections included
    • Abstract (first section)
    • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
  • Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python: everything but 80-column line length, so as to avoid tedious re-aligning during this draft stage
  • PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
  • Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

Standards Track requirements

  • PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
  • Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
    • Motivation: included in Rationale
    • Rationale
    • Specification: Abstract is RFC 2119 style
    • Backwards Compatibility
    • Security Implications: not needed?
    • How to Teach This: Examples And Teaching section
    • Reference Implementation
    • Rejected Ideas
    • Open Issues: None so far
  • Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
  • Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such: none
  • Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4416.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0786/

@jb2170 jb2170 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2025 01:09
@jb2170 jb2170 mentioned this pull request May 8, 2025
Closed
27 tasks
@AA-Turner AA-Turner added the new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review label May 8, 2025
@AA-Turner AA-Turner requested a review from ncoghlan May 8, 2025 01:19
AA-Turner
AA-Turner reviewed May 8, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I haven't read the content of the PEP yet, but a few notes:

jb2170 added 2 commits May 8, 2025 03:29
@jb2170
Address AA-Turner's notes
3ca6120
@jb2170
Remove TODO bullet point for z and # commutativity
bd29ea4 
It's better to give the formatspec one canonical ordering than permit an
overly liberal rearrangeability.

If commutativity were added, then as well as the messy description required
for the docs for the particular case of `int` data, two people could write
two different format spec that result in the same output and not realise
it or agree, because they've written different things, leading to confusion etc.
hugovk
hugovk reviewed May 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
jb2170 and others added 6 commits May 16, 2025 07:47
@jb2170 @hugovk
Apply the more trivial suggestions from code review
d7d9cf0 
I'll address the other ones in a separate commit(s)

Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <[email protected]>
@jb2170
Hyphenate 8-bit etc when appropriate
d1e47e4
@jb2170
Correct 'defacto' -> 'de facto'
be6f1dd
@jb2170
Reword the verdict of '!' syntax to not sound like there already is c…
b5c3b24 
…lutter in the format specification
@jb2170
Remove TODO bullet point for authorship
17a5532 
I'm the author of this PEP. Sergey and Raymond shouldn't be pestered over it. They are in the appropriate 'Thanks' section.
@jb2170
Reword 45 and -19 being indistinguishable modulo 64, '101101'
a06e982
skirpichev
skirpichev previously requested changes May 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
StanFromIreland
StanFromIreland reviewed May 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
StanFromIreland
StanFromIreland reviewed May 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@hugovk hugovk hugovk left review comments

@AA-Turner AA-Turner AA-Turner left review comments

@StanFromIreland StanFromIreland StanFromIreland left review comments

@skirpichev skirpichev skirpichev left review comments

@ncoghlan ncoghlan Awaiting requested review from ncoghlan

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@jb2170 @hugovk @skirpichev @AA-Turner @StanFromIreland