On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> well, on #11779 I am in minority, as some people refuse to acknowledge that
> exponentiation is often
> a binary operation (say, on positive reals)...
> If anyone is still willing to review this ticket, and not just demonstrate
> how stubb
well, on #11779 I am in minority, as some people refuse to acknowledge that
exponentiation is often
a binary operation (say, on positive reals)...
If anyone is still willing to review this ticket, and not just demonstrate
how stubborn they can be, this will be appreciated.
--
To post to this
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, 5 September 2011 22:41:50 UTC+8, rjf wrote:
>>
>> is 4^(-2) (use various kinds of integers) integer rational float?
>> ditto for
>> 5^(-2) ?
>>
>> Seems to me that the presence of python integers is an inconsistency
>> wait
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:41 AM, rjf wrote:
> is 4^(-2) (use various kinds of integers) integer rational float?
> ditto for
> 5^(-2) ?
>
> Seems to me that the presence of python integers is an inconsistency
> waiting to appear, and
> the only proper use of python ints is as a sage integer which
