[Python-ideas] Decimal literal?
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Dec 4 11:43:43 CET 2008
Chris Rebert writes:
> We're talking about adding a feature, not taking speed away.
OK, that's reasonable. But adding features is expensive. BTW, don't
listen to me, I've never done it. Listen to Raymond.
> If anything, this would increase adoption of Python as people
> writing programs that use decimals extensively would be able to use
> decimals with greater ease.
Maybe. I don't see a huge advantage of
I also think that most of the (easy) advantage to Decimal will accrue
to people who *never* have to deal with measurement error:
accountants. But oops! they don't need Decimal per se; they're
perfectly happy with big integers. People who really *do* need
Decimal are not going to be deterred by 16 characters (counting the
newline<wink>); they're already into real pain.
> Additionally, your argument can be turned on its head ;-) Consider:
> Does perfect accuracy matter quite *that* critically in most
> everyday programs? Of course not. But that's the wrong question.
> Python is a *general-purpose* programming language, not an
> "everyday application where accuracy isn't critical programming
> language". There are plenty of applications that just cry
> out<wink> for a Python implementation where it does matter.
I think you've misspelled "precision".<wink> Improved accuracy cannot
be achieved simply by adding a new number type.
More information about the Python-ideas