On 5 March 2014 08:10, Andrew Barnert firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
From: Mark H. Harris email@example.com >
I am expecting that (just as in Rexx numbers) defining very clearly what is a python number will be key for wide adaptation of the concept. But there should be no surprises for users, particularly average users. Anyone with a middle school expectation of a numeric format should be able to use python numbers without surprises.
Anyone with a middle school expectation will expect 1/3 to be a fraction--or, at least, something they can multiply by 3 to get exactly 1. Using an inexact decimal float instead of an inexact binary float is no improvement at all.
I actually think that it is an improvement. Most people are surprised by the fact that just writing x = 0.1 causes a rounding error. Python only has dedicated syntax for specifying binary floats in terms of decimal digits meaning that there is no syntax for exactly specifying non integer numbers. I would say that that is clearly a sub-optimal situation.
I don't agree with Mark's proposal in this thread but I would like to have decimal literals e.g. 1.23d, and I would also use Fraction literals if available e.g. 1/3F.