Hi Armin,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 09:56:43PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
d += 1.2
d
NotImplemented
The PEP documenting the coercion logic has complete tables
for what should happen:
Well, '+=' does not invoke coercion at all, with new-style classes like
Decimal.
True, it doesn't invoke
Armin Rigo wrote:
Hi Facundo,
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:31:19PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
d += 1.2
d
NotImplemented
The situation appears to be a mess. Some combinations of specific
operators fail to convert NotImplemented to a TypeError, depending on
old- or
Hi Marc,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 09:56:43PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
d += 1.2
d
NotImplemented
The PEP documenting the coercion logic has complete tables
for what should happen:
Well, '+=' does not invoke coercion at all, with new-style classes like
Decimal.
Looking at the code in
Hi Facundo,
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 02:31:10PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
nb_add and nb_multiply should be tried. I don't think that this would
break existing C or Python code, but it should probably only go in 2.5,
together with the patch #1390657 that relies on it.
It'd be good to
Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, speaking of a rewrite, PyPy does the right thing in
these two areas. Won't happen to CPython, though. There are too
much backward-compatibility issues with the PyTypeObject
structure; I think we're doomed with patching the bugs as they
show up.
Hi Brett,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
Maybe. Also realize we will have a chance to clean it up when Python
3 comes around since the classic class stuff will be ripped out. That
way we might have a chance to streamline the code.
For once, old-style classes
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 02:40:38AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
That sounds like the right definition to me (I believe this behaviour is what
Raymond and Facundo were aiming for with the last round of updates to
Decimal).
Done in patch #1390657.
Although this patch passes all existing
2005/12/26, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Done in patch #1390657.
Fantastic, Armin, thank you!
nb_add and nb_multiply should be tried. I don't think that this would
break existing C or Python code, but it should probably only go in 2.5,
together with the patch #1390657 that relies on it.
Hi Facundo,
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:31:19PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
d += 1.2
d
NotImplemented
The situation appears to be a mess. Some combinations of specific
operators fail to convert NotImplemented to a TypeError, depending on
old- or new-style-class-ness, although this is
Armin Rigo wrote:
Hi Facundo,
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:31:19PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
d += 1.2
d
NotImplemented
The situation appears to be a mess. Some combinations of specific
operators fail to convert NotImplemented to a TypeError, depending on
old- or
Hi Reinhold,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 12:37:53PM +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
that nobody fully understands the convoluted code paths of abstract.c
any more :-(
Time for a rewrite?
Of course, speaking of a rewrite, PyPy does the right thing in these
two areas. Won't happen to
Armin Rigo wrote:
Hi Reinhold,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 12:37:53PM +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
that nobody fully understands the convoluted code paths of abstract.c
any more :-(
Time for a rewrite?
Of course, speaking of a rewrite, PyPy does the right thing in these
two areas.
On 12/25/05, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Reinhold,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 12:37:53PM +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
that nobody fully understands the convoluted code paths of abstract.c
any more :-(
Time for a rewrite?
Maybe. Also realize we will have a chance to
Folks,
There's a bug about number coercion about Decimal
(http://www.python.org/sf/1355842).
The bug appeared after some changes Raymond and I did a few months
ago, solving something else (started to return NotImplemented instead
of raising TypeError, to better work with custom objects that
14 matches
Mail list logo
