python-peps/pep-0237.txt

236 lines
8.0 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

PEP: 237
Title: Unifying Long Integers and Integers
Version: $Revision$
Author: pep@zadka.site.co.il (Moshe Zadka), guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum)
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 11-Mar-2001
Python-Version: 2.2
Post-History: 16-Mar-2001
Abstract
Python has both integers (machine word size integral) types, and
long integers (unbounded integral) types. When integers
operations overflow the machine registers, they raise an error.
This PEP proposes to do away with the distinction, and unify the
types from the perspective of both the Python interpreter and the
C API.
Note from second author: this PEP requires more thought about
implementation details. I've started to make a list of semantic
differences but I doubt it's complete.
Rationale
Having the machine word size exposed to the language hinders
portability. For examples Python source files and .pyc's are not
portable between 32-bit and 64-bit machines because of this. Many
programs find a need to deal with larger numbers after the fact,
and changing the algorithms later is not only bothersome, but
hinders performance in the normal case.
There is also the general desire to hide unnecessary details from
the Python user when they are irrelevant for most applications.
(Another example is memory allocation, which explicit in C but
automatic in Python, giving us the convenience of unlimited sizes
on strings, lists, etc.)
It will give new Python programmers (whether they are new to
programming in general or not) one less thing to learn before they
can start using the language.
Transition
There are three phases of the transition:
1. Ints and longs are treated the same, no warnings are issued for
code that uses longs. Warnings for the use of longs (either
long literals, ending in 'L' or 'l', or use of the long()
function) may be enabled through a command line option.
2. Longs are treated the same as ints but their use triggers a
warning (which may be turned off or turned into an error using
the -W command line option).
3. Long literals and (if we choose implementation plan 1 below)
the long() built-in are no longer legal.
We propose the following timeline:
1. Python 2.2.
2. The rest of the Python 2.x line.
3. Python 3.0 (at least two years in the future).
Implementation
There are two alternative implementations to choose from.
1. The PyInt type's slot for a C long will be turned into a
union {
long i;
struct {
unsigned long length;
digit digits[1];
} bignum;
};
Only the n-1 lower bits of the long have any meaning; the top bit
is always set. This distinguishes the union. All PyInt functions
will check this bit before deciding which types of operations to
use.
2. The existing short and long int types remain, but the short int
returns a long int instead of raising OverflowError when a
result cannot be represented as a short int. A new type,
integer, may be introduced that is an abstract base type of
which both the int and long implementation types are
subclassed. This is useful so that programs can check
integer-ness with a single test:
if isinstance(i, integer): ...
Literals
A trailing 'L' at the end of an integer literal will stop having
any meaning, and will be eventually phased out.
Built-in Functions
The function long() will call the function int(). If
implementation plan 1 is chosen, it will eventually be phased out;
with implementation plan 2, it remains in the language to
represent the long implementation type -- but the int() function
is still recommended, since it will automatically return a long
when needed.
C API
If implementation plan 1 is chosen, all PyLong_As* will call
PyInt_As*. If PyInt_As* does not exist, it will be added.
Similarly for PyLong_From*. A similar path of warnings as for the
Python built-ins will be followed.
If implementation plan 2 is chosen, the C API remains unchanged.
(The PyArg_Parse*() APIs already accept long ints, as long as they
are within the range representable by C ints or longs. This will
remain unchanged.)
Overflows
When an arithmetic operation on two numbers whose internal
representation is as machine-level integers returns something
whose internal representation is a bignum, a warning which is
turned off by default will be issued. This is only a debugging
aid, and has no guaranteed semantics.
A command line option may be used to enable these warnings (the
regular warning framework supports warnings that are off by
default, but this is be too slow -- it makes a call to an
complex piece of Python code).
This warning is not part of the transition plan; it will always be
off by default, and the feature will probably disappear in Python
3.0.
Semantic Changes
The following operations have (usually subtly) different semantics
for short and for long integers, and one will have to change
somehow. This is intended to be an exhaustive list; if you know
of anything else that might change, please write the author.
- Currently, all arithmetic operators on short ints except <<
raise OverflowError if the result cannot be represented as a
short int. This will change (of course).
- Currently x<<n can lose bits for short ints. No more.
- Currently, hex and oct literals for for short ints may specify
negative values; for example 0xffffffff == -1 on a 32-bint
machine. No more; this will equal 0xffffffffL which is 2**32-1.
- Currently, the '%u', '%x' and '%o' string formatting operators
and the hex() and oct() built-in functions behave differently
for negative numbers: negative short ints are formatted as
unsigned C long, while negative long ints are formatted with a
minus sign. The long int semantics will rule (but without the
trailing 'L' that currently distinguishes the output of hex()
and oct() for long ints).
- Currently, repr() of a long int returns a string ending in 'L'
while repr() of a short int doesn't. The 'L' will be dropped.
- Currently, an operation with long operands will never return a
short int. This may change (it allows an optimization). This
is only relevant if implementation plan 2 is chosen.
- Currently, type(x) may reveal the difference between short and
long ints. This will change if implementation plan 1 is chosen.
Jython Issues
Jython will have a PyInt interface which is implemented by both
from PyFixNum and PyBigNum.
(Question for the Jython developers -- do you foresee any other
problems?)
Open Issues
We expect that these issues will be resolved over time, as more
feedback is received or we gather more experience with the initial
implementation.
- Which implementation plan to choose? Moshe is for plan 1, Guido
is for plan 2. Plan 2 seems less work. Plan 1 probably breaks
more at the C API level, e.g. PyInt_AS_LONG below.
- What to do about sys.maxint? (If implementation plan 1 is
chosen, it should probably be phased out; for plan 2, it is
still meaningful.)
- What to do about PyInt_AS_LONG failures? (Only relevant with
implementation plan 1.)
- What do do about %u, %o, %x formatting operators?
- Should we warn about << not cutting integers?
- Should the overflow warning be on a portable maximum size?
- Will unification of types and classes help with a more
straightforward implementation? (Yes, it allows a common base
class.)
- Define an C API that can be used to find out what the
representation of an int is (only relevant for implementation
plan 1).
2001-03-19 14:36:46 -05:00
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
End: