[Numpy-discussion] [Python-3000] PEP 31XX: A Type Hierarchy for Numbers (and other algebraic entities)

Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin@gmail....
Sat Apr 28 17:19:47 CDT 2007


On 4/27/07, Alan Isaac <aisaac@american.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> > Then again, doubles aren't a group either because of this
> > imprecision, and I'm suggesting claiming they're
> > a subclass of that, so maybe there's room in a practical
> > language to make them a subclass of the rationals too.
>
> Would using language from the Scheme report be useful when
> discussing this?
> http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/projects/scheme/documentation/scheme_5.html

Very much so. Thanks for sending the link. I'm not going to get a
chance to update the document for the next several days, so if you
want to put together a patch using such language, I'd be happy to see
it go in. Or I'll integrate those ideas once I have a bit more spare
time.

It looks like the primary ideas there are that it was worthwhile for
Scheme to have the full Number:>Complex:>Real:>Rational:>Integer
tower, and that it wasn't worthwhile to duplicate it entirely for the
exact/inexact distinction.

Thanks,
Jeffrey


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list