eval('000052') = 42?

[Astan Chee]

Hi,
I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?
Thanks

[Erik Max Francis]

Astan Chee wrote:

I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?

String literals beginning with a 0 are in octal.

Besides, using eval for such a narrow case is extremely unwise. Instead
use int:

>>int('00052')

52

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
God grant me to contend with those that understand me.
-- Thomas Fuller

[John Machin]

On Feb 21, 3:09 pm, Astan Chee <[e-mail]:

Hi,
I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?
Thanks

Eight fives are forty. Forty plus two is forty two. I see no bug here,
only a language design strangeness which can be blamed on the then-
pervasive influence of all things from Bell Labs :-)

BTW, hasn't anyone told you not to play with the eval function? Put it
down. You could catch something nasty.

[Laurent Pointal]

Astan Chee a écrit :

Hi,
I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?
Thanks

Ad Erik replied, a literal value beginning by 0 is interpreted as an
octal value (and beginning by 0x it is interpreted as hexadecimal value).

You may use int construction from string, which allow to specify a base
(default to ten):

>>int('00052')

52

>>int('00052',10)

52

>>int('00052',8)

42

Note: this avoid possible evaluation of undesired Python expressions...

A+

Laurent.

[=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOp?= Malo]

Astan Chee wrote:

Hi,
I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?

You know, it's just the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the
universe, and everything.

SCNR, nd

[Bart Ogryczak]

On Feb 21, 5:09 am, Astan Chee <[e-mail]:

Hi,
I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?

It works just fine. Read up on integer literals.

>>52 #decimal

52

>>052 #octal

42

>>0x52 #hexadecimal

82

[Neil Cerutti]

On 2007-02-21, André Malo <au********@g-kein-spam.comwrote:

Astan Chee wrote:

>Hi,
I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?

You know, it's just the answer to the ultimate question of
Life, the universe, and everything.

Yeah, but I was hoping the question would've turned out better.

--
Neil Cerutti

[Roger Miller]

On Feb 20, 7:37 pm, "John Machin" <[e-mail]:

On Feb 21, 3:09 pm, Astan Chee <[e-mail]:

Hi,
I just tried to do
eval('00052') and it returned 42.
Is this a known bug in the eval function? Or have I missed the way eval
function works?
Thanks

Eight fives are forty. Forty plus two is forty two. I see no bug here,
only a language design strangeness which can be blamed on the then-
pervasive influence of all things from Bell Labs :-)

So is this anachronism slated for removal in Python 3?