On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:59:10 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> Aside from the backward compatibility concerns (which mean that this >> can't be done in a language that calls itself "Python"), I'm not seeing >> any reason that a human-friendly language can't spend most of its time >> working with arbitrary-precision rationals, only switching to floats >> when (a) the programmer explicitly requests it, or (b) when performing >> operations that fundamentally cannot be performed with rationals. > > > True, it can't be called Python. But it could be called > EvenSlowerThanPythonYouReallyDontWantToDoAnySeriousNumericWorkWithThis > instead. > > > > *wink*
I was thinking "Rational Python" to troll all the people who can't tell the difference between a rational number and a rational person. *wink* ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
