On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > wxjmfa...@gmail.com: > >> Le mercredi 19 mars 2014 09:51:20 UTC+1, Marko Rauhamaa a écrit : >>> wxjmfa...@gmail.com: >>> >>>> complex(2, 1+1j) >>> > (1+1j) >>> >>> I find it neat, actually. >> >>>>> # tricky: yes, neat: no >>>>> complex(1+1j, 2) >> (1+3j) > > So complex(a, b) is documented to produce a+bj when a and b are integers > or floats. What's more natural than saying it produces a+bj when a and b > are complex numbers? It's a straightforward generalization that in no > way violates the more limited documentation.
When is it ever useful though? I only see a use for passing a as complex if b is omitted, and I don't see any use for passing b as complex. If there's no use case, then it's just a confusing edge case that will catch unsuspecting programmers who thought the data they were passing in was real-valued when actually it wasn't. It would be better to raise an exception in either of the cases above, in my opinion. If you really want to form a complex a+bj from two other complex numbers, there is always the explicit (a + b * 1j). That said, complex numbers have been around since 1.4 or so, and there's probably not much chance to change it now. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
