On 12 Mar 2001 08:24:03 +0000, Michael Hudson <mwh21@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> If "/" on integers returns a rational (as I presume it will if
> rationals get in as it's the only sane return type), then can we
> please have the default way of writing rationals as "p/q"?
That's proposed in a different PEP. Personally (*shock*) I'd like
all my PEPs to go in, but we sort of agreed that they will only
get in if they can get in in seperate pieces.
> Having ddd.ddd be a rational bothers me. *No* langauge does that at
> present, do they? Also, writing rational numbers as decimal floats
> strikes me s a bit loopy. Is
>
> 0.33333333
>
> 1/3 or 3333333/10000000?
The later. But decimal numbers *are* rationals...just the denominator
is always a power of 10.
> Certainly, if it's to go in, I'd like to see
>
> > > Literals
> > >
> > > Literals conforming to the RE '\d*.\d*' will be rational numbers.
>
> in the PEP as justification.
I'm not understanding you. Do you think it needs more justification, or
that it is justification for something?
--
"I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
-- Wichert Akkerman (on debian-private)| easier, more seductive.
For public key, finger moshez@debian.org |http://www.{python,debian,gnu}.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