Ethan Furman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anybody have an example of when the unary + actually does something?
I've seen it (jokingly) used to implement a prefix increment
operator. I'm not going to repeat the details in case somebody
decides it's serious code.
--
\S -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http
On Jul 8, 12:34 pm, Ethan Furman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody have an example of when the unary + actually does something?
> Besides the below Decimal example. I'm curious under what circumstances
> it would be useful for more than just completeness (although
> completeness for it's own s
On Jul 7, 4:12 pm, Ethan Furman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings, List!
>
> I'm working on a numeric data type for measured values that will keep
> track of and limit results to the number of significant digits
> originally defined for the values in question.
>
> I am doing this primarily bec
Terry Reedy wrote:
Ethan Furman wrote:
Anybody have an example of when the unary + actually does something?
Besides the below Decimal example. I'm curious under what circumstances
it would be useful for more than just completeness (although
completeness for it's own sake is important, IMO).
Ethan Furman wrote:
Anybody have an example of when the unary + actually does something?
Besides the below Decimal example. I'm curious under what circumstances
it would be useful for more than just completeness (although
completeness for it's own sake is important, IMO).
All true operators
Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Jul 8, 12:12 am, Ethan Furman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Any reason to support the less common operators?
i.e. <<, >>, &, ^, |
No reason to support any of these for a nonintegral
nonbinary type, as far as I can see.
2) What, exactly, does .__pos__() do? A
On Jul 8, 12:12 am, Ethan Furman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Any reason to support the less common operators?
> i.e. <<, >>, &, ^, |
No reason to support any of these for a nonintegral
nonbinary type, as far as I can see.
> 2) What, exactly, does .__pos__() do? An example would help,
On Jul 7, 6:12 pm, Ethan Furman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings, List!
>
> I'm working on a numeric data type for measured values that will keep
> track of and limit results to the number of significant digits
> originally defined for the values in question.
>
> I am doing this primarily bec
