[Python-Dev] python-dev Summary for 2004-03-01 through 2004-03-15 [rough draft]

[Gareth McCaughan]

On Saturday 2004-03-20, Brett Cannon wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------
> PEP 318 and the discussion that will never end
> ----------------------------------------------
> Just looking at the number of contributing threads to this summary should
> give you an indication of how talked about this PEP became.  In case you
> don't remember the discussion `last time`_, this PEP covers
> function/method(/class?) decorators: having this::
> 
>   def foo() [decorate, me]: pass
> 
> be equivalent to::
> 
>   def foo(): pass
>   foo = decorate(me(foo))

<nitpick>
Although, as you say, there was some disagreement about what order
of application is best, I think there was a very strong preference
for the opposite order to the one you've given here.
</nitpick>

> ------------------------------------------------------
> Take using Python as a calculator to a whole new level
> ------------------------------------------------------
...
> The topic of accuracy, though, was not as clear-cut.  First the issue of
> whether to use the in-development Decimal module would be the smart thing
> to do.  The consensus was to use Decimal since floating-point, even with
> IEEE 754 in place, is not accurate enough for something that wants to be
> as accurate as an actual calculator.  Then discussions on the precision of
> accuracy came up.  It seemed like it would be important to have a level of
> precision kept above the expected output precision to make sure any
> rounding errors and such would be kept to a minimum.

<nitpick>
I didn't see any consensus that Decimal should be used. "Ordinary"
operations (arithmetic, cos, exp, etc) in IEEE 754 double-precision
are a lot more accurate than the displayed precision, or even the
internal precision, on typical calculators. (It's possible that
some such calculators do their internal calculations in IEEE doubles
these days; I don't know.)
</nitpick>

-- 
g