>>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:
TW> I have to agree with MAL. I know, rationally, why a rational
TW> literal (or is it literal rational ?) is desirable, but it
TW> feels like clutter and all of the proposed syntactic solutions
TW> strike me as bad ideas. I'd much rather have the above (which
TW> deals with everyone else's favorite data type and their
TW> requests to have builtin support for it at the same time) than
TW> a not-quite-perfect way to spell a rational literally.
It seems to me that Python has a tradition of deferring syntax
decisions until way after the more important issues have been
worked out. Perhaps we should do the same here, IOW, get the rational
library into the core and see if a rational literal makes that big a
difference for readability or maintainability. It may not, but then
at least we'll still have rationals.
-Barry
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