Disagree with proposed 2.4 behavior for %x formatting of signed i nts

[Martin v. Löwis]

bokr at oz.net (Bengt Richter) writes:

> >>>>>print "0x%08X" % -1041053949
> >> 
> >> 0x-3E0D38FD
> >
> >Actually, what *will* happen is
> >
> >-0x3E0D38FD
> >
> Really?

No. I should have read the original message better :-(

Regards,
Martin