Moshe Zadka <moshez@zadka.site.co.il> writes:
> 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.
Fair enough.
> > 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.
Well, floating point numbers are rationals too, only the denominator
is always a power of 2 (or sixteen, if you're really lucky).
I suppose I don't have any rational (groan) objections, but it just
strikes me instinctively as a Bad Idea.
> > Certainly, if it's to go in, I'd like to see
^
"more than"
sorry.
> > > > 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 think it needs more justification.
Well, actually I think it should be dropped, but if that's not going
to happen, then it needs more justification.
Cheers,
M.
--
To summarise the summary of the summary:- people are a problem.
-- The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, Episode 12
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