Skip to content

PEP 791: address PEP review comments #4430

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

skirpichev
Copy link
Member

@skirpichev skirpichev commented May 21, 2025

  • add submodule variant
  • add Rationale section
  • expand Motivation

  • Change is either:
    • To a Draft PEP
    • To an Accepted or Final PEP, with Steering Council approval
    • To fix an editorial issue (markup, typo, link, header, etc)
  • PR title prefixed with PEP number (e.g. PEP 123: Summary of changes)

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4430.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0791/

@skirpichev skirpichev force-pushed the pep791-address-comments branch 2 times, most recently from 963f154 to 86e15a2 Compare May 24, 2025 06:34
@skirpichev skirpichev force-pushed the pep791-address-comments branch from 86e15a2 to 8cdce7a Compare May 24, 2025 06:37
@skirpichev skirpichev marked this pull request as ready for review May 24, 2025 06:38
@skirpichev skirpichev requested a review from vstinner as a code owner May 24, 2025 06:38
@skirpichev
Copy link
Member Author

CC @zooba

Comment on lines +42 to +44
Which content, as in beginning, will be again related to work with "just
numbers" --- that for most people with basic education means some model of real
numbers).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This feels dismissive, can we reword it?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any suggestions?

I meant we can't expect advanced math background from average Python users. What they might expect from "just numbers"? They are closed for arithmetic operations (python's int's - aren't), but sometimes not for algebraic (e.g. sqrt(-1)), and they are more than just rational numbers (i.e. sqrt(2)). People also probably aware of decimal floating-point model for real numbers (or at least with fixed-point).

skirpichev and others added 3 commits May 24, 2025 11:10
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
@skirpichev
Copy link
Member Author

CC @serhiy-storchaka

@@ -131,6 +156,10 @@ interval math or numerical integration.
Other proposed names include ``ntheory`` (like SymPy's submodule),
``integermath`` and ``imaths``.

As a variant, the new module can be added as a submodule of the
:external+py3.14:mod:`math`. The main module itself will preserve a "catch-all"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not convinced by the "catch all" aspect knowing that cmath and statistics will stay outside the math package.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This naming suggests, that new functions (that are not suitable for cmath/statistics/random) will go either to the math module or to some math's submodule.

I think it's an important implication of this naming scheme, i.e. we can't just drop this sentence. But I appreciate any suggestions to reword it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants