homepage

When evaluating, signed zero complex numbers aren't recovered correctly.
>>> -0j
(-0-0j)
>>> (-0-0j)
0j
>>> 0j
0j
According to http://docs.python.org/dev/reference/datamodel.html#object.__repr__ the representation can be used to recreate an object with the same value. Shouldn't this also be possible with complex numbers?
When using complex('...'), round-trip works correctly. While this can be used to recover the exact number, i find it confusing that complex('...') isn't the same as eval('...').
>>> complex('-0j')
-0j
>>> complex('(-0-0j)')
(-0-0j)
>>> complex('0j')
0j

This is not easy to avoid, I'm afraid, and it's a consequence of Python's usual rules for mixed-type arithmetic: (-0-0j) is interpreted as 0 - (0.0 + 0.0j) --- that is, the 0j is promoted to a complex instance (by giving it zero real part) before the subtraction is performed. Then the real part of the result is computed as 0.0 - 0.0, which is 0.0. Note that the first 0.0 comes from converting the *integer* 0 to a complex number. If you do -0.0-0.0j you'll see a different result:
>>> -0.0-0.0j
(-0+0j)

An aside: C99 gets around this problem by allowing an (optional) Imaginary type, separate from Complex. Very few compilers support it, though.

The issue of changing the complex repr came up again in #41485, which has been closed as a duplicate of this issue.
See also https://bugs.python.org/issue23229#msg233963, where Guido says:
> BTW I don't want repr() of a complex number to use the complex(..., ...)
notation -- it's too verbose.
FWIW, I'd be +1 on changing the complex repr, but given Guido's opposition we're probably looking at a PEP to make that happen, and I don't have the bandwidth or the energy to push such a PEP through.

Also related: #40269 

> BTW I don't want repr() of a complex number to use the complex(..., ...)
A compromise would be to only use this notation if signed zeros are involved.
---
Another option would be to use slightly unusual reprs for these complex numbers, which at least round-trip:
 def check(s, v):
 c = eval(s)
 # use string equality, because it's the easiest way to compare signed zeros
 cs = f"complex({c.real}, {c.imag})"
 vs = f"complex({v.real}, {v.imag})"
 assert vs == cs, f' expected {vs} got {cs}'
 check("-(0+0j)", complex(-0.0, -0.0))
 check("(-0.0-0j)", complex(-0.0, 0.0)) # non-intuitive
 check("-(-0.0-0j)", complex(0.0, -0.0)) # non-intuitive
Which I suppose would extend to complex numbers containing just one signed zero
 check("(-0.0-1j)", complex(-0.0, -1))
 check("-(0.0-1j)", complex(-0.0, 1))
 check("-(1+0j)", complex(-1, -0.0))
 check("-(-1+0j)", complex(1, -0.0))
Only two of these reprs are misleading for users who don't understand what's going on, the rest will just strike users as odd.