On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 02:39:49PM +0200, Sebastian M. Ernst wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> after just having typed tons of `math.isclose` (see PEP 485 [1]) and
> `numpy.isclose` calls (while basically using their default tolerances
> most of the time), I was wondering whether it makes sense to add a
> matching operator.

I wrote the statistics module in the stdlib, and the tests for that use 
a lot of approximate equality tests:

https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/3.8/Lib/test/test_statistics.py

which includes an approx_equal function that pre-dates the math.isclose 
and a unittest assertApproxEqual method. So I like to think I'm a heavy 
user of approximate comparisons.

I wouldn't use an approximate operator. Not even if it were written with 
the unicode ≈ ALMOST EQUAL TO symbol :-)

The problem is that the operator can only have a single pre-defined 
tolerance (or a pair of tolerances, absolute and relative), which 
would not be very useful in practice. So I would have to swap from the 
operator to a function call, and it is highly unlikely that the operator 
tolerances would be what I need the majority of the time.


-- 
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/6AWLMPZCLZCUG6BUBV6JF5XHUQYQAYC5/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to