Frank Breitling <frank.breitl...@gmx.de> added the comment: Unfortunately my reply to the list lost all quotes, so I try to answer again through the web interface: ---
> I'm not quite sure why that formula would be "elegant" in the first place, Because its short. > and I most certainly don't understand why 0.5*sign((100*YY)+MM-190002.5) + > 0.5 is more elegant ... Because the former is a proper mathematical expression, while the latter is python jargon with limited use elsewhere. > or rather: implementing leap years correctly in the first place, so the > formula also works outside of the 1800-2099 range. Exactly, why is there no correct implementation of Julian date in python time or datetime? For most practical purposes I can understand why most people would consider the above formula most useful and most elegant. > And, in general, I don't understand the problem. Everyone who does scientific > computing has numpy *anyway*, so there is no gain for them. Then what's the math module good for? > As a last note, the C math.h also doesn't have a sign() function, and only a > copysign() function: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_mathematical_functions So what? Is this the law of Moses? Or should we fall back to Assebmly? Python is supposed to be a high-level language not a stone age tool. However, I am glad you found at least another reason convincing to have this function. Cheers! ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue829370> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
