On Sep 5, 11:43 pm, leif <not.rea...@online.de> wrote: > On 5 Sep., 18:33, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That said, for consistency with the rest of Sage, e.g., that int(1) + > > Integer(2) is an Integer, we should have int(3)^Integer(2) be an > > Integer. > > These are completely different things; see my previous post.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I think this is certainly worth thinking carefully about. Neither solution (assuming we want as much compatibility with Python as possible, pace rjf) is ideal. What happens in Python 3.x, where I understand there *is* some kind of rational object? Maybe we should be oriented toward compatibility with that, if it's relevant. I didn't see a discussion of that in this thread, my apologies if I missed it. - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
