[Guido]
> ...
> In 2.6, I'd be okay with standardizing int on 64 bits everywhere (I
> don't think bothering with 128 bits on 64-bit platforms is worth it).
> In 2.5, I think we should leave this alone.
Nobody panic. This wasn't on the table for 2.5, and as Martin points
out it needs more specific
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> The big deal right now is on 32 bit platforms, giving the 64-bits for int.
> However, it will also be a win for 64-bit platforms for ints that fall
> between 64 and 128 bits.
As Guido suggests: long long isn't 128 bits on most 64-bit platforms
(AFAIK).
> My conclusion
On 5/23/06, Sean Reifschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've been discussing the possibility of converting the Python int type to
> long long (from long). I played around with it some, and it's going to be
> a huge change that probably will break most C extensions until. However,
> as unclet
We've been discussing the possibility of converting the Python int type to
long long (from long). I played around with it some, and it's going to be
a huge change that probably will break most C extensions until. However,
as uncletimmy says, "Python is so stinking slow" that it probably won't
mak
