Tim Peters wrote:
> I'm with Raymond on this one, especially given the triviality of
> implementing the revised spec's new logical operations.
Exactly. I already implemented part of it, and took less than read this
thread, ;).
The cost of having it is lines of code in decimal.py. The benefit is
Tim Peters wrote:
> [Raymond Hettinger]
>> ...
>> My intention for the module is to be fully compliant with the spec and all
>> of its
>> tests. Code written in other languages which support the spec should expect
>> to be transferrable to Python and run exactly as they did in the original
>> la
[Raymond Hettinger]
> ...
> My intention for the module is to be fully compliant with the spec and all of
> its
> tests. Code written in other languages which support the spec should expect
> to be transferrable to Python and run exactly as they did in the original
> language.
>
> The module its
> The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
> that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
> of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
> of the spec, that doesn't have any other way of doing
> bitwise logical operations.
Nonsense. The logical operations
"Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
| that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
| of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
| of the spec, that doesn't have any other way
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> I had the same opinion until I saw the logic stuff.
>
> The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
> that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
> of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
> of the spec, that does
> The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
> that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
> of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
> of the spec, that doesn't have any other way of doing
> bitwise logical operations. If that's the case, then Python
>
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | While I question the sanity of the spec writers in this case, I do trust
> that
> | overall, they have provided an extremely well thought-out spec, have gone
> | through extensive discussion/feedback cycles, and h
> We supposedly have a standard for additions to the standard lib. I cannot
> think of any other module being admitted with what amounts to an unlimited
> blank check for further additions.
xml.dom.minidom, xml.sax, posix, htmlentitydefs, Tkinter.
Regards,
Martin
__
"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > I oppose adding this illogical nonsense to Python. Who would ever use
it?
|
| Doesn't matter. What is more important is that we provide a module that
is
| fully compliant with the specification and passes all
| > Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
| > operations to FLOATING-POINT?
|
| Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
| Arithmetic Specification, as we promised.
|
| http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/
> I oppose adding this illogical n
"Facundo Batista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| > Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
| > operations to FLOATING-POINT?
|
| Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
| Arithmetic Spe
Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
> > operations to FLOATING-POINT?
>
> Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
> Arithmetic Specification, as we promised.
>
> http://www2.hur
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
> operations to FLOATING-POINT?
Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
Arithmetic Specification, as we promised.
http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/
Regards,
--
. Facun
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> - and (and), or (or), xor (xor) [CD]: Takes two logical operands, the
>> result is the logical operation applied between each digit.
>
> "and" and "or" are keywords, you can't have methods with those names:
You're right. I'll name them logical_and, logical_or, and log
Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27 Apr, 2007, at 20:39, Facundo Batista wrote:
>
> > - and (and), or (or), xor (xor) [CD]: Takes two logical operands, the
> > result is the logical operation applied between each digit.
>
> "and" and "or" are keywords, you can't have methods with
On 27 Apr, 2007, at 20:39, Facundo Batista wrote:
- and (and), or (or), xor (xor) [CD]: Takes two logical operands, the
result is the logical operation applied between each digit.
"and" and "or" are keywords, you can't have methods with those names:
>>> def and(l, r): pass
File "", line
17 matches
Mail list logo
