Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
I'd like to divorce `prod()` from floating-point complications. The `sum()` builtin has proved extremely handy, even for floats, in large part because it's type-agnostic and straightforward. While I'd usually use `prod()` on ints and Fractions, in almost all cases I have for multiplying floats a dirt simple implementation would work fine too (e.g., I don't multiply NaNs or infinities to begin with, overflow and underflow can't occur in context, and I usually couldn't care less about the accuracy of the trailing bits). Not that floats should suffer benign neglect forever, but heroically complex - and expensive - float implementations should get their own function, like `fprod()` (like they got their own `fsum()` function). Likewise if, e.g., someone wants an `iprod()` that makes heroic efforts to reorder partial products to speed multiplying sequences of giant integers, or `matprod()` to re-associate matrix multiplications in an optimal way, or ... ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35606> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
