On Tue, Apr 20, 2004, Kevin Jacobs wrote: > Aahz wrote: >>On Tue, Apr 20, 2004, Kevin Jacobs wrote: >>> >>>Neither. It is well understood that operations on Decimal instances >>>must rely on the context. The idea here is to overflow and round >>>correctly upon instance creation without going through a great deal of >>>additional effort. >> >>Why do you think this is a "great deal" of effort? I still have some >>trouble understanding why you think this should go into Decimal rather >>than being an add-on. > > It could be an add-on, but it seems a common and fundamental enough > operation that it should be well supported by the core library. > External implementations may be less efficient, as they cannot take > advantage of the internal implementation details that a better > integrated solution would offer. > > This isn't something I am willing to go to war on, but at the same > time, I'm willing to expend some effort to lobby for inclusion. > Either way, I will have the necessary infrastructure to accomplish my > aims, though my goal is for everyone to have it without re-inventing > the wheel. Silence on this topic benefits nobody. How is your need here more common and fundamental than Money? I see here a repeat of the discussions around the new datetime module, where the decision was made to keep the core implementation dirt-simple, with enough hooks for people to add functionality. What makes this case different? -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "I used to have a .sig but I found it impossible to please everyone..." --SFJ
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