On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-7, Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > > The question is not about exact or inexact, not even about the > implementation of its elements (we can even imagine that RR is not a > parent anymore), it is about having a home for the abstraction of the > real field, in the mathematical sense. Its elements can not have an > exact representation anyway (if only for a cardinality reason). So, it > is not to replace an implementation with another, but to have something > that covers all existing representations. > > I think any change of RR in such a way would have to be accompanied with a fairly comprehensive survey of how much code out there will break, due to RR(pi) and similar statements no longer working. It might be limited if people are frequently caring about the number of digits this happens with, but if RR gets used a lot as an alternative to RDF then the breakage could be considerable, to a point where it's not really feasible to change the meaning.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/7ad9b5aa-9f9e-4eb6-95b5-c788b7f646cfo%40googlegroups.com.
