In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carsten Haese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> |> Ah, so now you're putting words in the BDFL's mouth. ;) |> |> The pronouncement does say "The needs outlined in the rationale section |> have been addressed to some extent by the acceptance of PEP 327 for |> decimal arithmetic," but it doesn't say to which extent, and it |> certainly doesn't claim that decimal arithmetic is a replacement for |> rational arithmetic.
Eh? If the needs are addressed to some extent, then to some extent it is a replacement. |> The sentence you're referring to is "There are excellent Rational |> implementations [...]. Probably worth PEPping, not worth doing without |> Decimal." I agree that this sentence is poorly worded, but I think it |> means "Even if we had Rational, we'd still need Decimal" in the sense |> that Rational is not an adequate replacement for Decimal. Which would be justifiable, but is not what it said. What it SAID is what I said it said .... |> The bottom line is that there are use cases for both Rational and |> Decimal, and neither one can replace the other, So far, so good. With reservations, I agree. |> but there are more use |> cases for Decimal than for Rational. That is dubious, but let's not start that one again. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
