Raymond Hettinger wrote: > Conceptually, it's a bug. The numeric tower treats non-complex > numbers as special cases of complex where the imaginary > component is zero (that's why the non-complex types all support > real/imag), and since complex numbers are not allowed to compare > to themselves, they shouldn't compare to anything else either. There's a contradiction in there somewhere. If you believe that a non-complex is equivalent to a complex with zero imaginary part, then you *should* be able to compare two complexes provided that their imaginary parts are both zero. (I don't think that should be the case, BTW -- complex numbers live on a two-dimensional plane, and from a geometrical point of view there's no reason to single out the x-axis and give it special treatment.) -- Greg
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