[Python-Dev] shouldn't we be considering all pending numeric
Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:15:43 +0200
Skip Montanaro wrote:
> There are several active or could-be-active PEPs related to Python's numeric
> S 211 pep-0211.txt Adding A New Outer Product Operator Wilson
> S 228 pep-0228.txt Reworking Python's Numeric Model Zadka
> S 237 pep-0237.txt Unifying Long Integers and Integers Zadka
> S 238 pep-0238.txt Non-integer Division Zadka
> S 239 pep-0239.txt Adding a Rational Type to Python Zadka
> S 240 pep-0240.txt Adding a Rational Literal to Python Zadka
> S 242 pep-0242.txt Numeric Kinds Dubois
> Instead of implementing them piecemeal, shouldn't we be considering them as
> a related group? For example, implementing any or all of PEPs 237, 239 and
> 240 might well have an effect on what needs to be done for PEP 238. With
> slight modifications, the proposals in PEP 242 might well subsume PEP 238's
> functionality in a different way.
> If the semantics of arithmetic are going to change, I think they should
> change in the context of expanded capability in the language.
May I suggest that these rather controversial changes be carried
out on a separate branch of the Python source tree before adding
them to the trunk ?!
The reasoning here is that numerics are so low-level that porting
applications to a new release implementing these changes will
cause a lot of work (mostly due to the dynamic nature of Python).
Another suggestion I would like to make is that the new semantics
are first implemented using alternative subclassed numeric
objects (e.g. newint()) which can then live side-by-side with the
old semantics types for a few releases until they replace the
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/