[Guido, on 3/5r] > I'd like at least one of those return '0.6' or '0.6r'. [Oren Tirosh] > Why should any of them go through a potetially lossy transformation? 0.6r is exact, although it's hard to know whether Guido was hoping to preserve that or not. > If you need to approximate a ratio as a finite decimal fraction it should > be explicit: str(float(r)). > I think it will also make a good visual cue to always use > rational notation for rationals and decimal fractions for floats. The trailing 'r' *is* rational notation, and stuff like this probably isn't a good idea for str(): > #e6.02e-45 301/50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > 6.02e-45r would be clearer to virtually anyone. > (+ 312 (/ 1 3)) 937/3 > would likely be clearer to virtually anyone as 312+1/3r too. But most of all, I agree that if you're working with rationals, you don't want to lose information silently, not even in a "pleasant" string. > The result of repr() should eval() back to exactly the same object. The > result of str() should be the 'pretty' representation because this is the > form displayed by print statements and %s formatting. I find > '2/3' prettier than '0.666666666667' 2/3r works for both for me. 0.666...7 doesn't work for me at all as a stringification of a rational (if I want to approximate, I'll ask for an approximation).
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