Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: [Rémi 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. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue40028> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
