Message256216
| Author |
mark.dickinson |
| Recipients |
Mark Lundeberg, mark.dickinson, vstinner |
| Date |
2015年12月11日.14:45:35 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1449845135.73.0.83556680124.issue25839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> As I understand the output of repr() is supposed to be something that can evaluated to recreate the same object.
Right, but that's an ideal that's not always achieved in practice. If I had my druthers, I'd 'fix' the repr of the complex object to return something that's written in terms of the constructor (for example, "complex(2.3, -0.0)"). I don't think that's a reasonable change from the POV of backwards compatibility though. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2015年12月11日 14:45:35 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, vstinner, Mark Lundeberg |
| 2015年12月11日 14:45:35 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1449845135.73.0.83556680124.issue25839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015年12月11日 14:45:35 | mark.dickinson | link | issue25839 messages |
| 2015年12月11日 14:45:35 | mark.dickinson | create |
|