This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author gvanrossum facundobatista, gvanrossum, jyasskin, mark.dickinson, rhettinger 2008-01-10.04:35:35 0.0003787596 No <1199937077.11.0.78867968871.issue1682@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
```All in all, Decimal is the odd man out -- it may never become a full
member of the Real ABC. The built-in types complex, float and int (and
long in 2.x) all support mixed-mode arithmetic, and this is one of the
assumptions of the numeric tower -- and of course of mathematics. The
new Rational type can be designed to fit in this system pretty easily,
because it has no pre-existing constraints; but the Decimal type
defies coercion, and is perhaps best left alone. It's already breaking
the commonly understood properties of equality, e.g. 1.0 == 1 ==
Decimal("1") != 1.0.

--Guido

On Jan 9, 2008 7:51 PM, Mark Dickinson <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Mark Dickinson added the comment:
>
> Allowing automatic coercion to and from Decimal sounds dangerous and
> complicated to me.  Mightn't it be safer just to disallow this (at least for
> now)?
>
> I think something like trim()  (find the closest rational approximation with
> denominator bounded by a given integer) would be useful to have as a Rational
> method, but probably only for explicit use.
>
> I'm still worried about equality tests:  is it possible to give a good reason
> why Decimal("2.5") == Rational(5, 2) should return False, while Rational(5, 2)
> == 2.5 returns True.  Can someone articulate some workable principle that
> dictates when an int/float/complex/Rational/Decimal instance compares equal to
> some other int/float/complex/Rational/Decimal instance of possibly different
> type but the same numerical value?
>
>
> __________________________________
> Tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1682>
> __________________________________
>```
History
Date User Action Args
2008-01-10 04:35:39gvanrossumsetspambayes_score: 0.00037876 -> 0.0003787596
recipients: + gvanrossum, rhettinger, facundobatista, mark.dickinson, jyasskin