On 1/24/07, Gareth McCaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> complex(complex(1.0, 2.0), complex(10.0, 20.0)) > > (-19+12j) > > WTF? In any case, that's also what's destroying the sign of the > imaginary part in complex(1.0, -0.0). It seems pretty clear what it thinks it's doing -- namely, defining complex(a,b) = a + ib even when a,b are complex. And half of why it does that is clear: you want complex(a)=a when a is complex. Why b should be allowed to be complex too, though, it's hard to imagine.
I think that's the right thing to do, because that is mathematically correct. j is just an imaginary number with a property that j*j = -1. So (a+bj) + (c+dj)j = (a-d) + (b+c)j. Complex numbers are not just magic pairs with two numbers and have actual mathematical rules.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
