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.
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | facundobatista, gvanrossum, jyasskin, mark.dickinson, rhettinger |
| Date | 2008年02月10日.15:55:47 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.60253304 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1202658948.84.0.506524381365.issue1682@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
We still need to sort out the trim/approximate/convergents decisions.
Currently, we have:
from_continued_fraction
to_continued_fraction
approximate (what we've been calling trim: limit the denominator)
At this point I'm not sure how much I care about what is or is not
included, but here are a few thoughts:
(1) if to_continued_fraction is kept it should be a generator instead of
returning a list.
(2) from_continued_fraction would be better replaced by convergents,
since a user is just as (more?) likely to be interested in the whole
sequence of convergents than just the final convergent. If
from_continued_fraction is kept in addition to convergents then it
should work forwards instead of backwards, so that it doesn't need to
use reversed (and hence works on the output of to_continued_fraction).
(3) approximate needs finishing up and possibly renaming to trim.
Can we remove {from,to}_continued_fraction and just leave trim? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年02月10日 15:55:48 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.602533 -> 0.60253304 recipients: + mark.dickinson, gvanrossum, rhettinger, facundobatista, jyasskin |
| 2008年02月10日 15:55:48 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.602533 -> 0.602533 messageid: <1202658948.84.0.506524381365.issue1682@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年02月10日 15:55:48 | mark.dickinson | link | issue1682 messages |
| 2008年02月10日 15:55:47 | mark.dickinson | create | |