Brett Cannon <bac@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes: > Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but making a new decimal type that > includes a new suffix for numbers is going to require a PEP. Your > email, though, already seems like a rather good start for one and should > not require much more work. That is certainly the case (both the need for a PEP, and that the message is a good starting point). While the technical aspects of the proposed changes look fine, I'm missing a rationale: why is having decimal literals in the language a good thing? [this is not to say they aren't, but it may not be obvious] > It would be easier to get the module itself sans any Python core changes > accepted initially to gauge usage and interest by the Python community > before pushing for syntax integration. This is what is be done with the > current rational implementation. It also appears that a decimal type feature in the language will/should interact with a rational type. I don't know whether the current rational type proposals suggests introduction of new literals, but I feel that the only rational literals you'll ever need are decimals (and we all know that floating-point literals are decimal rationals, too). So it might be that we *only* get the decimal notation from this proposal, and not a proper decimal type. Of course, my CORBA affinity tells me that a decimal type would be useful as well :-) Regards, Martin
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