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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-April/023272.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Objects complexobject.c,2.57,2.58

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: Deprecating divmod() // % for complex
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Objects complexobject.c,2.57,2.58
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote:

>[Tim]
>> Does it make sense to deprecate divmod() and // for complex numbers while
>> leaving % intact?
>
>It doesn't, and I've repaired this.
>
>However, I'm wondering what to do after we unify all numeric types
>(*if* we ever decide to do that, which isn't clear).  At that point,
>should these operators be allowed as long as the imaginary part is
>zero?

I wasn't aware that complex numbers were part of the grand unification plan,
but of course it makes a lot of sense.  It then seems fairly obvious to me
that treating a number with zero imaginary part differently than a number
with no imaginary part would surprise a lot of people.

+1 on allowing these operators to continue to work
on complex numbers with a zero imaginary part.

	/Paul

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: Deprecating divmod() // % for complex
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Objects complexobject.c,2.57,2.58
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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