Made the description of %[udxXo] formats of negative longs in 2.1 more accurate.
I suggested to Guido that %u be deprecated (it seems useless in Python to me).
diff --git a/Misc/NEWS b/Misc/NEWS
index 14ba867..ed29fcb 100644
--- a/Misc/NEWS
+++ b/Misc/NEWS
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Core language, builtins, and interpreter
-- %[duxXo] formats of negative Python longs now produce a sign
+- %[xXo] formats of negative Python longs now produce a sign
character. In 1.6 and earlier, they never produced a sign,
and raised an error if the value of the long was too large
to fit in a Python int. In 2.0, they produced a sign if and
@@ -12,11 +12,21 @@
platforms), and inconsistent with hex() and oct(). Example:
>>> "%x" % -0x42L
- '-42' # in 2.1
+ '-42' # in 2.1
'ffffffbe' # in 2.0 and before, on 32-bit machines
>>> hex(-0x42L)
'-0x42L' # in all versions of Python
+ The behavior of %d formats for negative Python longs remains
+ the same as in 2.0 (although in 1.6 and before, they raised
+ an error if the long didn't fit in a Python int).
+
+ %u formats don't make sense for Python longs, but are allowed
+ and treated the same as %d in 2.1. In 2.0, a negative long
+ formatted via %u produced a sign if and only if too large to
+ fit in an int. In 1.6 and earlier, a negative long formatted
+ via %u raised an error if it was too big to fit in an int.
+
What's New in Python 2.0?
=========================