A modest PEP0238 suggestion
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Wed Jul 25 01:12:17 EDT 2001
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Wed Jul 25 01:12:17 EDT 2001
- Previous message (by thread): A modest PEP0238 suggestion
- Next message (by thread): A modest PEP0238 suggestion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
paul at svensson.org (Paul Svensson) writes: (Thanks for your nice table, BTW.) > The only choices that make sense to me here are, either we break stuff, > or we do nothing. Either way, we'll most likely have to revisit the > issue if/when syntax for rationals is to be added to the language. Actually, adding rationals can be done almost entirely without breaking code... That is, *if* we adopt PEP-238 now. Changing 1/2 from returning a float to returning a rational won't have to break code, since the mathematical value of the result is the same. Changing it from returning 0 to returning a rational isn't any easier than changing it from returning 0 to returning a float -- exactly the same places will have to be changed. If you're for rationals, you're for PEP-238. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message (by thread): A modest PEP0238 suggestion
- Next message (by thread): A modest PEP0238 suggestion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list