Message 256211 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub , and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

In-reply-to
Author	Mark Lundeberg
Recipients	Mark Lundeberg, mark.dickinson, vstinner
Date	2015年12月11日.09:01:35
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1449824496.19.0.978962268042.issue25839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
Good point, it is doing (int-complex), observe also the following pecularities: >>> -0 - 0j 0j >>> -0. - 0j (-0+0j) >>> -0j -0j >>> 0-0j 0j >>> -(0j) (-0-0j) >>> 0.+(-0j) 0j Does this mean the bug is in repr() ? As I understand the output of repr() is supposed to be something that can evaluated to recreate the same object. However I am unsure whether it would be nicer if repr() were to yield 'complex(-0.,-0.)' or '-(-0.+0j)'.

Content

Good point, it is doing (int-complex), observe also the following pecularities:
>>> -0 - 0j
0j
>>> -0. - 0j
(-0+0j)
>>> -0j
-0j
>>> 0-0j
0j
>>> -(0j)
(-0-0j)
>>> 0.+(-0j)
0j
Does this mean the bug is in repr() ? As I understand the output of repr() is supposed to be something that can evaluated to recreate the same object. However I am unsure whether it would be nicer if repr() were to yield 'complex(-0.,-0.)' or '-(-0.+0j)'.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2015年12月11日 09:01:36	Mark Lundeberg	set	recipients: + Mark Lundeberg, mark.dickinson, vstinner
2015年12月11日 09:01:36	Mark Lundeberg	set	messageid: <1449824496.19.0.978962268042.issue25839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015年12月11日 09:01:36	Mark Lundeberg	link	issue25839 messages
2015年12月11日 09:01:35	Mark Lundeberg	create

homepage