[Old] PEP 786: Precision and Modulo-Precision Flag format specifiers for integer fields

[jb2170]

Draft PR for new PEP 791

Sponsor Pending

There is a TODO section in the PEP that shall perish as the PEP is tweaked before even considering merging

Relevant discussions, issues, PRs linked

https://discuss.python.org/t/implement-precision-format-spec-for-int-type-data/80760
python/cpython#131926
python/cpython#74756

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: sponsor pending
• Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
• PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
• 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: sponsor pending

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: on the TODO list if an RFC 2119 style summary is needed
  • 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: pending
• 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--4365.org.readthedocs.build/

[AA-Turner]

If you get a sponsor, the next number is either 785 or 786.

[ncoghlan]

While I didn't see the original Discourse thread, I've definitely been bitten by the # vs field width problem, so I'd be happy to be listed as a PEP sponsor.

[hugovk]

Thanks, let's use 785 for #4357 and 786 here.

[AA-Turner]

@jb2170 are you able to make the relevant updates here?

[AA-Turner]

Do you intend to open a new PR, or should we un-reserve the PEP number?

Thank you for your work on the draft PEP!

A

[jb2170]

Opening a new PR with the correct branch name, one minute 😅

[jb2170]

New PR open here (sorry GitHub doesn't allow the renaming of the source branch for an open PR; I want it to be correct to avoid confusion 791 786).

@ncoghlan
I'd be happy to be listed as a PEP sponsor.

That's brilliant thank you! I wish I'd checked up on this PR earlier: I left it for a bit as I thought I'd have to go e-door to e-door asking around for a sponsor lol 😅 but you'd picked it up the following day!

Last week I was full of a cold so I couldn't have done much then anyways, but now let's get it!