Hi Chris, Hi List,
having slept over it, I think I have to take back my offer to write a PEP. Why?
Well, I am actually sure that it will get rejected anyways.
What I would like to have is that you can write 1/2 * m * v**2, and that can be
treated symbolically. Writing 1/2F instead looks ugly to
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 5:15 PM Martin Teichmann
wrote:
>
> Hi Chris, Hi List,
>
> having slept over it, I think I have to take back my offer to write a PEP.
> Why? Well, I am actually sure that it will get rejected anyways.
Wouldn't be the first time a PEP has been written with full
expectation
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 05:28:39PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Wouldn't be the first time a PEP has been written with full
> expectation of it being rejected, though!
Nor the first time that someone wrote a PEP initionally expecting it to
be rejected, and had it accepted.
*cough* dict union
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 6:24 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 05:28:39PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't be the first time a PEP has been written with full
> > expectation of it being rejected, though!
>
> Nor the first time that someone wrote a PEP initionally exp
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 07:14:47AM -, Martin Teichmann wrote:
> In general, doing symbolic math in Python is not very beautiful.
[...]
> It could be fruitful to add syntax for symbolic math, but this is a
> whole new topic. Looking around there also seems to be not much out
> there, even ded
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 4:18 AM Martin Teichmann
wrote:
> Hi Chris, Hi List,
>
> having slept over it, I think I have to take back my offer to write a PEP.
> Why? Well, I am actually sure that it will get rejected anyways.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> I see that you would like to sum up the discussion in a PEP
Martin wrote:
In general, doing symbolic math in Python is not very beautiful.
I think this is a problem worth investigating. (Disclaimer: I do research
in pure mathematics.)
> The number of hoops you have to jump through is large, mostly because
> syntax is abused for things it was not actual
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 09:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 07:14:47AM -, Martin Teichmann wrote:
>
> > In general, doing symbolic math in Python is not very beautiful.
> [...]
> > It could be fruitful to add syntax for symbolic math, but this is a
> > whole new topic. Loo
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:39:33PM +0100, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> Yes, but having a faster fraction type would be great. SymPy doesn't
> actually use the fractions module because it's too slow. Instead SymPy
> has its own pure Python implementation that is a little faster and
> will use gmpy2's mp
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 12:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:39:33PM +0100, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> > Yes, but having a faster fraction type would be great. SymPy doesn't
> > actually use the fractions module because it's too slow. Instead SymPy
> > has its own pure Python
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 05:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 01:57:29AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Decimal literals have a number of awkward wrinkles, so I'd leave them
> > aside for now;
>
> I'm surprised at this.
>
> Decimal literals have come up at least twice in the
On Sat, May 15, 2021, 3:13 PM Oscar Benjamin
> That would mean that a simple statement like x = -1.01d could assign
> different values depending on the context. Maybe with the new parser it is
> easier to change this so that an unary +/- can be part of the literal.
Steven, at least, stated he as
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 20:52, David Mertz wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2021, 3:13 PM Oscar Benjamin
>>
>> That would mean that a simple statement like x = -1.01d could assign
>> different values depending on the context. Maybe with the new parser it is
>> easier to change this so that an unary +/-
13 matches
Mail list logo
