On 10/21/2012 8:23 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > 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. I would take that as meaning complex or subclass thereof or whatever is consistent with float() and int(). > > > > 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). > -- 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