>> If Guido was adding complex numbers today instead of long ago, I
>> wonder if he would allow a special notation for them, or just suggest
>> a constructor.
Guido> At the time I believe there was heavy pressure from the Numeric
Guido> crowd to allow a special notation. I'm not so sure if I should
Guido> have given in though.
However, 1+4j can be peephole optimized into a compile-time constant whereas
complex(1,4) can't. This is generally not a big deal, but to people who
deal with complex numbers a lot (and tend to be more sensitive to
optimization issues) it can be. I believe when I tested my peephole
optimizer using pybench several years ago, the complex number tests showed
the most improvement because I could collapse constant expressions.
Of course, people using lots of complex numbers probably initialize their
complex constants outside of loops. ;-)
Skip
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