With apologies for the delay, here are my notes from the numeric coercion
day.
There were many topics which were defined by the Timbot to be within the
scope of the discussion. Those included:
- Whether numbers should be rationals / binary FP / decimal FP / etc.
- Whether there should be support for both exact and inexact computations
- What division means.
There were few "deliverables" at the end of the day, mostly a lot of
consternation on all sides of the multi-faceted divide, with the impression
in at least this observer's mind that there are few things more
controversial than what numbers are for and how they should work. A few
things emerged, however:
0) There is tension between making math in Python 'understandable' to a
high-school kid and making math in Python 'useful' to an engineer/scientist.
1) We could consider using the new warnings framework for noting things
which are "dangerous" to do with numbers, such as:
- noting that an operation on 'plain' ints resulted in a 'long'
result.
- using == when comparing floating point numbers
2) The Fortran notion of "Kind" as an orthogonal notion to "Type" may make
sense (details to be fleshed out).
3) Pythonistas are good at quotes:
"You cannot stop people from complaining, but you can influence what
they
complain about." - Tim Peters
"The only problem with using rationals for money is that money, is,
well, not rational." - Moshe Zadka
"Don't get too apoplectic about this." - Tim Peters
4) We all agreed that "2" + "23" will not equal "25".
--david ascher
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4