Message155897
Unfortunately my reply to the list lost all quotes, so I try to answer again through the web interface:
---
> I'm not quite sure why that formula would be "elegant" in the first place,
Because its short.
> and I most certainly don't understand why 0.5*sign((100*YY)+MM-190002.5) + 0.5 is more elegant ...
Because the former is a proper mathematical expression, while the latter is python jargon with limited use elsewhere.
> or rather: implementing leap years correctly in the first place, so the formula also works outside of the 1800-2099 range.
Exactly, why is there no correct implementation of Julian date in python time or datetime?
For most practical purposes I can understand why most people would consider the above formula most useful and most elegant.
> And, in general, I don't understand the problem. Everyone who does scientific computing has numpy *anyway*, so there is no gain for them.
Then what's the math module good for?
> As a last note, the C math.h also doesn't have a sign() function, and only a copysign() function: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_mathematical_functions
So what? Is this the law of Moses? Or should we fall back to Assebmly?
Python is supposed to be a high-level language not a stone age tool.
However, I am glad you found at least another reason convincing to have this function.
Cheers! |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-03-15 15:56:28 | fkbreitl | set | recipients:
+ fkbreitl, georg.brandl, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, gekonntde, valhallasw |
2012-03-15 15:56:28 | fkbreitl | set | messageid: <1331826988.44.0.15905225144.issue829370@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-03-15 15:56:27 | fkbreitl | link | issue829370 messages |
2012-03-15 15:56:27 | fkbreitl | create | |
|