Oh, this is just simple: (1.2).isreal() 1.2 .isreal() As Thomas said, fixing the grammar/parser would be rather difficult, so just expect people to use parens or an extra space if they want to use it on a constant. [ of course, it is very silly to make *any* changes to the grammar just to allow people to use these on a constant; that is quite a silly "usage" that we don't need to pander to; the above "workarounds", if you will, are sufficient for the bozos who use it on a constant. ] Cheers, -g On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 03:46:00PM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote: > On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 03:08:43PM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote: > > > And the parser would have to be fixed (either rewritten into at least an > > LL(2) parser, or the metagrammar hacked so that 'NUMBER' doesn't eat the . > > after a number if it isn't followed by another number or whitespace.) (At > > least IMHO, this isn't an insurmountable problem, or even a medium-sized > > problem. It was just never necessary to fix it.) > > Actually, no, it isn't easily fixable, if at all. The problem is mostly the > scientific notation: > > 1.e5 > > Even if it was parsed properly, it is definately going to confuse people. > They wouldn't be able to say, for instance, > > 1.e() > > ;P > > -- > Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> > > Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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