"Invalid literal for int() with base 10": is it really a literal?

[MRAB]

On 2023-05-26 09:29, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 17:56, Roel Schroeven <roel at roelschroeven.net> wrote:
>>
>> Kevin M. Wilson's post "Invalid literal for int() with base 10?" got me
>> thinking about the use of the word "literal" in that message. Is it
>> correct to use "literal" in that context? It's correct in something like
>> this:
>>
>>  >>> int('invalid')
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>    File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>> ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: 'invalid'
>>
>> But something like this generates the same message:
>>
>>  >>> int(input())
>> hello
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>    File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>> ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: 'hello'
>>
>> In cases like this there is no literal in sight.
>>
>> I'm thinking it would be more correct to use the term 'value' here:
>> ValueError: invalid value for int() with base 10: 'hello'
>> Does my reasoning make sense?
>>
> 
> It's a ValueError, so the problem is with the value. I suppose
> "invalid notation" might work, but since the definition of what's
> acceptable to the int() constructor is the same as for a Python
> literal, it's not wrong to use that word.
> 
> However, if you want to change the wording, I'd be more inclined to
> synchronize it with float():
> 
>>>> float("a")
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>    File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> ValueError: could not convert string to float: 'a'
> 
You still need to mention the base because:

 >>> int('y', 36)
34