RetroSearch Browse

Fri Apr 20 11:24:38 EDT 2001 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-April/084142.html

In article <mailman.987763770.10861.python-list at python.org>, M.-A.
Lemburg <mal at lemburg.com> wrote:

> "John W. Baxter" wrote:
> > 
> > In article <mailman.987707135.9028.python-list at python.org>, M.-A.
> > Lemburg <mal at lemburg.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm sure this proof of
> > >   concept will raise a few more questions regarding the
> > >   usefulness of switching to rationals for literals like
> > >   1.123.
> > 
> > I might be more tempted to create a Rational containing 1.123 by writing
> > Rational(1123, 1000).  (Not to mention the opportunities for
> > obfuscation:  Rational(2246, 2000) being just a non-obscure one.
> > 
> > And Paul makes a good case for Rational("1.123") I think.
> 
> Well, Moshe's plan is to have 1.123 result in a Rational(1123, 1000)
> being created (instead of a Python float). The extension should 
> make playing with this idea a whole lot easier.

I was trying to post a (mild) dissent from that plan.  It produces a
change in the value produced by an unchanged bit of code, namely 1.123,
since Rational (1123,1000) isn't equal in value to the present meaning
of 1.123.  Had Guido started off with Rational as the result of writing
1.123, I would like that, but that's not where we are [and this
sentence isn't meant to criticize Guido's choice].

  --John

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-April/084142.html below:

ANN: Experimental Number Types (Integer, Rational, Floats)