Eric Smith <e...@trueblade.com> added the comment: Mark Dickinson wrote: >> What should the format specifier mini-language for complex numbers look >> like? >> Should it look like the existing mini-language for floats, but have >> the format specified twice, with some sort of delimiter? > > This sounds clumsy to me. I'd guess that in most uses you'd want the > same format for both pieces.
I agree, and mostly I was just trying to spark some discussion and show how (absurdly) far we can take this. >> Or just specified once, and use that for both parts? > > That doesn't sound unreasonable. But there might need to be some > thinking about exactly what a '+' modifier means, or how you pad with > zeros on the left when you've got two pieces to pad. How about this: - we have a single specifier with the same format as floats - we force the sign on the imaginary part to be '+', no matter what was specified - we add a 'j' after the imaginary part - we ignore any width specified (and therefor any alignment and padding) > It seems simplest just to tell people to format the real and imaginary > parts by hand. As it isn't totally obvious how to do this (e.g., > remembering the '+' for the imaginary part), perhaps there should be a > recipe in the docs somewhere? When we document the above approach, we note the way to get full control as mentioned in a prior message. I guess we should put the docs in with string formatting (since that's where the other builtin types are documented), although really it belongs in complex.__format__ by itself. But I doubt anyone would find it there. Maybe we could to add a pointer from the string formatting to complex.__format__. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1588> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
