> Hmm, I like almost everything about your proposal. The above point > bothers me slightly. Are you saying (1.0).isexact() == 0? Yes. 1.0 is not an exact number. What's wrong with that? (Consider stuff like 0.333333333*3: this shouldn't be exact!) > Also, how about long integers? Will they, under your new proposal, be > indistinguisable from regular ints? Yes. > While this has some appeal to it > it would be problematic for C extension modules. I haven't mentioned anything about implementation, so I haven't dealt with the C level at all. Currently, a Python-level API is under consideration. I believe I can keep current day C API almost unchanged. > Finally, although I'm no Schemer, the hierarchy you suggest sounds > very Schemish to me I shamelessly stole it from Scheme, with only minor changes -- most of them about hardening some things Scheme left for implementations to decide. -- Moshe Zadka <sig@zadka.site.co.il>
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