Greg Ewing writes: > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > It's a design bug, yes. The question is, does it conform to > > documented behavior? > > The 2.7 docs say this about __complex__: > > Called to implement the built-in function complex() ... > Should return a value of the appropriate type. > > So the question is whether float is an "appropriate type" when > you're expecting a complex. I probably not say that, but even so my personal taste would be to fix the docs to describe the current behavior in 2.7. Evidently somebody thought "float" was appropriate, or they would have just written "Returns a complex value." Stability is more important than catering to my taste (even if it happens to represent a majority in some sense).
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