Message369794
[Rémi Lapeyre]
> In the end, if some core devs think that putting together the various discussions for an imath module in a coherent PEP [...]
I can't answer for other core devs. My *guess* is that there's a reasonable chance that a well-written PEP for this would be accepted, but that's just a guess.
For myself, I'm not opposed to the addition, but neither am I yet convinced it's a good idea; call me +0. The number of bad prime-checking and factorisation algorithms that turn up on Stack Overflow (and not just in the questions, either) is enough to convince me that it's worth having _something_ basic and non-terrible for people to use.
I *am* strongly opposed to adding an imath module without first having a PEP - many aspects are unclear and in need of wider discussion. I unfortunately don't personally have sufficient time and energy available to push a PEP discussion through myself.
If you want to take this further, restarting a discussion on the python-ideas mailing list may be the way to go. It may still be worth drafting a PEP first, though: a draft PEP would likely help guide that discussion, and perhaps avoid it going totally off-topic. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-05-24 11:48:13 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, phr, vstinner, christian.heimes, steven.daprano, serhiy.storchaka, remi.lapeyre, jfine2358, Dennis Sweeney, trrhodes |
2020-05-24 11:48:12 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1590320892.97.0.572021499686.issue40028@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-05-24 11:48:12 | mark.dickinson | link | issue40028 messages |
2020-05-24 11:48:12 | mark.dickinson | create | |
|