On 9/29/2012 2:38 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> Does this mean we want to re-open the discussion about decimal constants? >> Last time this came up I think we decided that we wanted to wait for >> cdecimal (which is obviously here) and work out how to handle contexts, the >> syntax, etc. > > I think that ought to be a Python 4 feature if we ever want it to be a > feature. And I'm not saying this to kill the discussion; I just think > it will be a huge change that we have to consider very carefully. > While the existing float definitely has problems for beginners, it is > incredibly useful for advanced users. Consider e.g. the implications > for numpy / scipy, one of the fastest-growing specialized Python user > communities. It is also one of, if not *the* oldest application communities. > Now if you want to introduce a new notation for decimals, e.g. 3.14d > and 1e42d, that would be a fine thing. (Should we also have complex > decimals? 1jd anyone?) I think not. The money community does not use complexes that I know of, and complex decimals would not be very useful without a complex decimal module (and 3rd party modules). Even the complex float operations and cmath library could use work to touch up and test corner cases. I can imagine giving IDLE a calulator mode. If Python itself had a startup switch, Idle could just restart the remote process. If a new suffix is used, Idle could add the suffix as literal numbers are entered. -- 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