Vedran Čačić added the comment: Mark, I think it would be a great idea. It would be consistent with both "str is straightforward, repr is reproducible", and with the idea that (evalable) repr is almost always of the form `typename(arguments)`. It would also get rid of that "supefluous-looking" parentheses around the repr, and put them in the right place: a call. :-)
[ On the other hand, I started to think deeply about the reason why we cannot make 1-0j do the right thing, and I'm not so sure anymore. People usually say it's because we don't have separate imaginary type, but we don't need it: all we need is a separate _real_ type, and we have it: float. When Python subtracts 0j from a float 1.0, there is no absolute imperative that it has to do it in the same way as subtracting 0j from a complex(1.0, 0.0). We _can_ make it so the result of the former is complex(1.0, -0.0), and result of the latter is complex(1.0, 0.0). Of course, now even the imaginary complex numbers couldn't be outputed simply, and -0 real part should become -0.0, but it might be worth it. I understand it's enormously complicated though, and I'd be satisfied with a "normal" repr. Or a literal_eval that really understand complex numbers' repr. ] ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27363> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
