W00t! On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> wrote:
FWIW, my viewpoint on this is softening over time and I no longer feel a need to push for a new context flag.
It is probably simplest for users if implicit coercions didn't come with control knobs. We already have Fraction+float-->float occurring without any exceptions or warnings, and nothing bad has happened as a result.
Also, I'm reminded of Tim Peter's admonition to resist extending the decimal spec.
I used to worry that any decimal/float interactions were most likely errors and shouldn't pass silently. Now, I've just stopped worrying and I feel better already ;-) Adding a FAQ entry is simpler than building-out Context object circuitry and documenting it in an understandable way.
Raymond
On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Stefan Krah wrote:
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The decimal module is already drowning in complexity, so it would be best to keep it simple: one boolean flag that if set would warn about any implicit decimal/float interaction.
Agreed - those that want exceptions instead can use the usual warnings module mechanisms to trigger them.
I'm not sure about the warnings module. If lower complexity is a goal, I would prefer Facundo's original proposal of just adding a single new signal. Users who just want to know if a NonIntegerConversion has occurred can check the flags, users who want an exception set the trap.
With the warnings module, users have to know (and deal with) two exception handling/suppressing mechanisms.
Stefan Krah
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)