Tim Peters wrote:
I'm with Raymond on this one, especially given the triviality of
implementing the revised spec's new logical operations.
Exactly. I already implemented part of it, and took less than read this
thread, ;).
The cost of having it is lines of code in decimal.py. The benefit is
Tim Peters wrote:
[Raymond Hettinger]
...
My intention for the module is to be fully compliant with the spec and all
of its
tests. Code written in other languages which support the spec should expect
to be transferrable to Python and run exactly as they did in the original
language.
Terry Reedy wrote:
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
| While I question the sanity of the spec writers in this case, I do trust
that
| overall, they have provided an extremely well thought-out spec, have gone
| through extensive discussion/feedback cycles, and have
The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
of the spec, that doesn't have any other way of doing
bitwise logical operations. If that's the case, then Python
Greg Ewing wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
I had the same opinion until I saw the logic stuff.
The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
of the spec, that doesn't
Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
| that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
| of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
| of the spec, that doesn't have any other way of
The only rationale I can think of for such a thing is
that maybe they're trying to accommodate the possibility
of a machine built entirely around a hardware implementation
of the spec, that doesn't have any other way of doing
bitwise logical operations.
Nonsense. The logical operations are
[Raymond Hettinger]
...
My intention for the module is to be fully compliant with the spec and all of
its
tests. Code written in other languages which support the spec should expect
to be transferrable to Python and run exactly as they did in the original
language.
The module itself
Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
| operations to FLOATING-POINT?
|
| Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
| Arithmetic
| Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
| operations to FLOATING-POINT?
|
| Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
| Arithmetic Specification, as we promised.
|
| http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/
I oppose adding this illogical
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I oppose adding this illogical nonsense to Python. Who would ever use
it?
|
| Doesn't matter. What is more important is that we provide a module that
is
| fully compliant with the specification and passes all of
We supposedly have a standard for additions to the standard lib. I cannot
think of any other module being admitted with what amounts to an unlimited
blank check for further additions.
xml.dom.minidom, xml.sax, posix, htmlentitydefs, Tkinter.
Regards,
Martin
On 27 Apr, 2007, at 20:39, Facundo Batista wrote:
- and (and), or (or), xor (xor) [CD]: Takes two logical operands, the
result is the logical operation applied between each digit.
and and or are keywords, you can't have methods with those names:
def and(l, r): pass
File stdin, line 1
Ronald Oussoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Apr, 2007, at 20:39, Facundo Batista wrote:
- and (and), or (or), xor (xor) [CD]: Takes two logical operands, the
result is the logical operation applied between each digit.
and and or are keywords, you can't have methods with those names:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
- and (and), or (or), xor (xor) [CD]: Takes two logical operands, the
result is the logical operation applied between each digit.
and and or are keywords, you can't have methods with those names:
You're right. I'll name them logical_and, logical_or, and logical_xor.
Nick Maclaren wrote:
Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
operations to FLOATING-POINT?
Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
Arithmetic Specification, as we promised.
http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/
Regards,
--
.
Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I losing my marbles, or is this a proposal to add the logical
operations to FLOATING-POINT?
Sort of. This is a proposal to keep compliant with the General Decimal
Arithmetic Specification, as we promised.
The following are the new operations in the decimal module that we'll
be available according to the last published specification.
I wrote here the proposed name by me, the original name between
parenthesis, where it will be located between square brackets (C for
context and D for the decimal
18 matches
Mail list logo
