On Feb 25, 12:58�am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 24, 10:56 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But that doesn't mean they become less manageable than > > other unlimited precision usages. Did you see my example > > of the polynomial finder using Newton's Forward Differences > > Method? The denominator's certainly don't settle out, neither > > do they become unmanageable. And that's general mathematics. > > No, that's a specific algorithm. �That some random algorithm doesn't > blow up the denominators to the point of disk thrashing doesn't mean > they won't generally. > > Try doing numerical integration sometime with rationals, and tell me > how that works out. �Try calculating compound interest and storing > results for 1000 customers every month, and compare the size of your > database before and after.
Nobody said rationals were the appropriate solution to _every_ problem, just as floats and integers aren't the appropriate solution to _every_ problem. Your argument is that I should be forced to use an inappropriate type when rationals _are_ the appropriate solution. I have never used the Decimal type, but I'm not calling for it's removal because I know there are cases where it's useful. If a rational type were added, no one would force you to use it for numerical integration. > > Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
