Hi
On 5/7/24 17:23, Gina P. Banyard wrote:
- What is the behaviour when casting a Number object to bool? Does it always cast to true
like a "standard" object, or does a Number equal to 0 cast to false?
That's a good topic. I didn't include any mention of this in the RFC because
there was no discussion about it. Personally, I like to return a bool value
that reflects the internal numerical state, like an int.
However, since I would like to avoid adding such specifications later when voting has
already begun, I will use the same as a "standard object" for now. If this RFC
is passed, I will additionally propose it in another RFC.
The lack of discussion about this topic is not a good excuse for not having
addressed this in the RFC.
This topic should have come up on its own while writing the RFC as this is
something that you should have considered, in the same way you have considered
how casting to string works.
Moreover, RFC discussions are steered by the content of the RFC, and
non-mentioned issues requires other people to consider cases that have not been
explicitly address, something that is difficult.
I feel this RFC has been brought to a vote too early, as such I am changing my
vote to no.
I am generally in favour of the concept, but there are too many details that
are unanswered or didn't even get proper attention for me to feel comfortable
with the state of the RFC in question.
Thank you for spelling out the feelings that I had towards the RFC but
wasn't able to clearly put into words myself.
Unfortunately I had not seen the announcement about the vote in time,
and wasn't able to give the RFC a final read before the vote. Personally
I also didn't expect a vote yet, because I felt the API surface of the
new class hasn't yet been given a proper thought and discussion,
including all possible edge cases. Most of the discussion I remember
revolved around final vs not-final and how to correctly perform the
rounding / expansion of scale (the latter of which I couldn't comment
on, as numeric programming is not my area of expertise), not the API
surface / the methods that are exposed. As an example, my concern about
the `format()` method has been left unresolved.
As such, I'm also voting "no", because I feel like the exposed API is
worse than it could be, but I also support the concept in principle.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
