On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:32:56 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I would argue that the result would be *more* predictable and certainly > more accurate than now. >
How do you explain somebody when precision is lost due to the extra rounding for coercion? Is composition of "compatible" coercions going to be a compatible coercion? What about polynomial rings over "compatible" rings? What about general push out? > Coercion must always be from higher precision to lower precision, this > > is the only structure-preserving map. > Sure, my proposal doesn't change this. > Heh, yes. Sorry, I just had that bottled up for too long ;-) -- 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/d/optout.
