On 10/21/2012 5:45 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >> I think I've changed my mind on this, since it was pointed >> out that if you're going to return a float instead of a >> complex, you should really be implementing __float__, not >> __complex__. > > Yes, I'm wavering on this, too. I'm reasonably convinced that the > complex constructor is wrong to accept a float return from > __complex__. But it's not clear to me whether it's better to break > backwards compatibility by fixing that in 3.4, or to accept the > mistake and make cmath behave analogously. I think we should fix it. A float return appears very rare, as well as wrong. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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