> > > The normal way to create a Rational is to write Rational(2, 3). > > > The next release will also have a string parser for rational > > > numbers (in the format "2/3" and probably "12 2/3" too). > > ^^^^^^ > > ^^^^^^ > > Just a note: > > This one is cultural and could generate lots of confusion. > > The only way I can parse it is 12*2/3 (I'm French). > > No French book (I know of) uses this notation: 38/3 or 12+2/3 > > is used instead. It's as if you wrote the complex number > > 3+4j as "3 4j" (look: "3 4j + 4 5j * 1 7j", hmmm...). > > The notation is quite common in financial business and > mathematics. I agree that it can be confusing, but since the > parser will only accept a single rational in the string, I > believe that at least when using Rational() this behaviour > can be accepted. The situation is different for literals, > of course... Of course, we should probably aim for a notation which is consistent *now*. 12 2/3 - ambguous across cultures. 38/3 - not ambiguous, but falls into the problem of integer truncation. Nevertheless, I would prefer this notation, and deprecate integer division notation in favour of 'mod' (since this would be a major incompatible language change anyway, might as well make a new keyword at the same time ;). 12+2/3 - not ambiguous and valid if the above is valid (integer + rational), I would probably want the compiler to start rolling literals together at this point... otherwise there would be 2 runtime calculations going on (division to form rational, then addition of integer). Tim Delaney
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