Author mark.dickinson
Recipients Dennis Sweeney, christian.heimes, jfine2358, mark.dickinson, phr, remi.lapeyre, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano, tim.peters, trrhodes, vstinner
Date 2020-05-24.11:48:12
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1590320892.97.0.572021499686.issue40028@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
[RĂ©mi 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.
History
Date User Action Args
2020-05-24 11:48:13mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, phr, vstinner, christian.heimes, steven.daprano, serhiy.storchaka, remi.lapeyre, jfine2358, Dennis Sweeney, trrhodes
2020-05-24 11:48:12mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <1590320892.97.0.572021499686.issue40028@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2020-05-24 11:48:12mark.dickinsonlinkissue40028 messages
2020-05-24 11:48:12mark.dickinsoncreate