Tim Peters wrote:
can wait a couple months, I'd be happy to own it. A possible saving
grace for ln() is that while the mathematical function is one-to-one,
I'm working right now in making the old operation to pass the new tests
ok.
Soon I'll cut a branch to work publicly on this (good idea
Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One low-effort approach is to use a general root-finding algorithm and
build ln(x) on top of exp() via (numerically) solving the equation
exp(ln(x)) == x for ln(x). ...
Not a general one, please! At least use one that assumes the continuity
of second
[Raymond Hettinger]
...
Likewise, consider soliciting Tim's input on how to implement the ln()
operation. That one will be tricky to get done efficiently and correctly.
One low-effort approach is to use a general root-finding algorithm and
build ln(x) on top of exp() via (numerically) solving
Now that the checkin is done, I don't think it needs to be reverted. But, in
general, we should probably abstain from making wholesale revisions that add
zero value for the users.
The stylistic change from:
ValueError, 'foo'
ValueError('foo')
is fine.
Changing MockThreading to
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
As promised in the decimal.py header, the spec
updates should all be considered as bugs and backported at some point
after they are fully tested and we're happy with them all around.
Also, as promised, the module should continue to run on Py2.3.
Ok. So far, I'm
