Nils Bruin wrote: > Here is something I think is really a bug: > > sage: parent(RealField(200)(1) + 1e-20) > Real Field with 53 bits of precision
Yes. And I'd say the behavior of RealField(200)(RR(1e-20))) is a bug as well (the same bug in fact). So I think there are two different issues here: 1. Real literals are elements of RR. IMO this is a bug that needs to be fixed. However, Jeroen disagreed in the ticket where this discussion originated[1], so I would like to hear other people's opinion. In my view, literals such as 1e-20 could be preparsed to Python floating- point decimals, rationals, elements of CLF... but certainly not elements of RR. [1] http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15542 2. Should real literals exist in the first place? I personally agree with Paul that they do more harm than good (they add a gratuitous difference between Sage and most languages, including Python, and they do not fit too well in Sage's floating-point arithmetic model). But having them in Sage is not an unreasonable design choice either. And of course getting rid of them entirely would break compatibility with earlier versions of Sage. -- Marc -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
