On Jan 13, 2008 7:26 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido mentioned the possibility briefly at
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/007015.html
> ("One could argue that float and Decimal are <:Q, but I'm not sure if
> that makes things better pragmatically") b
On Jan 13, 2008 3:41 PM, Leif Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't been watching the python-dev list for very long, so maybe
> this has already been discussed ad nauseam (in which case, sorry),
> but, from the devil's advocate-ish mathematics side of things, unless
> numbers.Decimal is plan
On Jan 13, 2008 6:12 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 8:21 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2008 5:09 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > During the discussion about the new Rational implementation
> > > (http://bugs
On Jan 12, 2008 8:21 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2008 5:09 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > During the discussion about the new Rational implementation
> > (http://bugs.python.org/issue1682), Guido and Raymond decided that
> > Decimal should not
On Jan 12, 2008 5:09 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> During the discussion about the new Rational implementation
> (http://bugs.python.org/issue1682), Guido and Raymond decided that
> Decimal should not implement the new Real ABC from PEP 3141. So I've
> closed http://bugs.python.o
During the discussion about the new Rational implementation
(http://bugs.python.org/issue1682), Guido and Raymond decided that
Decimal should not implement the new Real ABC from PEP 3141. So I've
closed http://bugs.python.org/issue1623 and won't be pursuing any of
the extra rounding methods mention
[Jeffrey Yasskin]
> I always like to have a patch around because abstract discussions,
> even (especially?) on simple topics, have a tendency to run off into
> the weeds. A patch keeps things focused and moving forward.
Please recognize that our little system of patches and newsgroup
discussions i
On Jan 6, 2008 10:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Jeffrey Yasskin]
> >> > I'm not
> >> > sure exactly what you're objecting to. Could you be more precise?
> >>
> >> You note said: "I'll implement Context.round() in a separate patch.
> >> Comment away."
> >
> > Oh, sorry for
[Jeffrey Yasskin]
> Given Guido's agreement, expect another version of this patch with
> only __trunc__.
Why is __trunc__ being backported? Is a trunc() builtin being backported?
What is the point for a synonym for int() and __int__ in
Py2.6.
Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't improve
[Jeffrey Yasskin]
>> > I'm not
>> > sure exactly what you're objecting to. Could you be more precise?
>>
>> You note said: "I'll implement Context.round() in a separate patch. Comment
>> away."
>
> Oh, sorry for not being clear then. I don't intend to write or discuss
> that separate patch until
On Jan 6, 2008 7:40 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Jeffrey Yasskin]
> > The other 3 methods
> > specified by PEP 3141 aren't strictly necessary for 2.6, but they will
> > be needed for 3.0. I'd rather not make the two versions of Decimal
> > gratuitously different, so this patc
[Jeffrey Yasskin]
> The other 3 methods
> specified by PEP 3141 aren't strictly necessary for 2.6, but they will
> be needed for 3.0. I'd rather not make the two versions of Decimal
> gratuitously different, so this patch puts them in the 2.6 version
> too.
If I understand you correctly, then the
On Jan 6, 2008 5:13 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I don't think all of these patches are helpful. The implementations
> are so easy and the effects are so obvious, that it is
> simply better to decide what to do first, then do it afterwards.
>
> My own preference is to
more harm than good.
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Yasskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Mark Dickinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Python 3000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent
On Jan 6, 2008 1:21 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 7:11 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think pep 3141's round(x, ndigits) does (1). The only thing it
> > > doesn't support yet is specifying the rounding mode. Perhaps the pep
> > > should sa
On Jan 5, 2008 7:11 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think pep 3141's round(x, ndigits) does (1). The only thing it
> > doesn't support yet is specifying the rounding mode. Perhaps the pep
> > should say that round() passes any extra named arguments on to the
> > __round__() m
> I think pep 3141's round(x, ndigits) does (1). The only thing it
> doesn't support yet is specifying the rounding mode. Perhaps the pep
> should say that round() passes any extra named arguments on to the
> __round__() method so that users can specify a rounding mode for types
> that support it?
On Jan 5, 2008 3:34 PM, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2008 5:54 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At first I didn't realize why I'd missed this feature. While the
> > rounding *modes* are well documented, though, after 20 minutes of
> > reading documentation I still
18 matches
Mail list logo
