homepage

> 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.