Mark Dickinson added the comment: > As I understand the output of repr() is supposed to be something that can > evaluated to recreate the same object.
Right, but that's an ideal that's not always achieved in practice. If I had my druthers, I'd 'fix' the repr of the complex object to return something that's written in terms of the constructor (for example, "complex(2.3, -0.0)"). I don't think that's a reasonable change from the POV of backwards compatibility though. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25839> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
