Rational Numbers

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <mailman.2648.1168616202.32031.python-list at python.org>,
Carsten Haese <carsten at uniqsys.com> 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.