I like the idea, but there is a question of namespace size, particularly if there may be other meanings for some of the names.
I would therefore prefer __math_sin__, __math_arctan__, etc. (Does it need to be even more specific than math?)
On 11/9/11, Case Van Horsen firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Currently the functions round(), math.ceil(), math.floor(), and math.trunc() all check for the existence of a special method (__round__, __ceil__, __floor__, and __trunc__). Would it be possible to enhance the math and cmath modules to check for the existence of a special method for (almost) functions? For example, math.sin(obj) would first check for obj.__sin__.
I'm in the final stages of adding support for the MPFR (multiple-precision floating point) and MPC (multiple-precision complex) libraries to the next-generation of gmpy, currently known as gmpy2. If the special method checks are added to the math and cmath modules, then the new mpfr() and mpc() types can easily substitute for the existing float/complex types in code that uses the math or cmath module.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Pythonemail@example.com http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas