On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 07:11 +0100, Stefan Behnel wrote: > Steven D'Aprano, 25.03.2011 06:46: > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:32:11 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: > > > >> It's probably the least justified builtin other than pow. > > > > I don't know about that. Correctly, efficiently and *quickly* > > implementing the three-argument version of pow is exactly the sort of > > thing that should be in the built-ins, or at least the standard library. > > I think that touches it already. We have a "math" module, so why is there a > *builtin* for doing special math? How much code is there really that only > uses pow() and does not import "math"? > > Stefan >
pow() and math.pow() are different. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
