Message86656
Mark Dickinson wrote:
>> What should the format specifier mini-language for complex numbers look
>> like?
>> Should it look like the existing mini-language for floats, but have
>> the format specified twice, with some sort of delimiter?
>
> This sounds clumsy to me. I'd guess that in most uses you'd want the
> same format for both pieces.
I agree, and mostly I was just trying to spark some discussion and show
how (absurdly) far we can take this.
>> Or just specified once, and use that for both parts?
>
> That doesn't sound unreasonable. But there might need to be some
> thinking about exactly what a '+' modifier means, or how you pad with
> zeros on the left when you've got two pieces to pad.
How about this:
- we have a single specifier with the same format as floats
- we force the sign on the imaginary part to be '+', no
matter what was specified
- we add a 'j' after the imaginary part
- we ignore any width specified (and therefor any alignment
and padding)
> It seems simplest just to tell people to format the real and imaginary
> parts by hand. As it isn't totally obvious how to do this (e.g.,
> remembering the '+' for the imaginary part), perhaps there should be a
> recipe in the docs somewhere?
When we document the above approach, we note the way to get full control
as mentioned in a prior message.
I guess we should put the docs in with string formatting (since that's
where the other builtin types are documented), although really it
belongs in complex.__format__ by itself. But I doubt anyone would find
it there. Maybe we could to add a pointer from the string formatting to
complex.__format__. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-04-27 11:32:10 | eric.smith | set | recipients:
+ eric.smith, gvanrossum, mark.dickinson, ajaksu2, mark |
2009-04-27 11:32:08 | eric.smith | link | issue1588 messages |
2009-04-27 11:32:07 | eric.smith | create | |
|