PEP 240 scares me
pearu at cens.ioc.ee
Fri Mar 23 06:48:14 CET 2001
Thanks for your replies. I now got it right what's in PEP 240.
The Proposed idea as it really is, is most surprising (not sure if
it is good or bad thing).
Seems that I have done too much numerics, so that I didn't realize that
typing 1.2 could then mean internal transformation rational(10*1.2,10).
Anyway, I take back my panic in my first message.
Sorry for the confusion.
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Steve Holden wrote:
> "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:99e2h61aao at news2.newsguy.com...
> > "Pearu Peterson" <pearu at cens.ioc.ee> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0103222338530.29360-100000 at kev.ioc.ee...
> > [snip]
> > > But making 1.2 to be a rational
> > > 1
> > > ---
> > > 2
> > > will most definitely surprise new (Python) programmers even more
> > Nobody's proposing THAT, AFAIK -- 1.2 would be the rational 6/5 (and I
> > gather the idea is that one uses 1.2e0 to get a float of similar value).
> Maybe Pearu complains about a typo which looks unlike an error?
More information about the Python-list