2011/5/20 Dirk Laurie
<dpl@sun.ac.za>
>
> I don't understand the rational of the removal of math.log10 and the addition
> of optional second parameter in math.log
Maybe because there is no longer any strong reason why base 10 is
any more special than base 2 or whatever.
>
> It's a general implementation of log, but all opportunities of optimization
> are lost.
If you have an application that calculates logarithms base 10 so often
that the unoptimized implementation slows it down unacceptably — then
you write a very short module in C that supplies log10 directly.
I know that.
But my point is that I think this evolution between 5.1 and 5.2 is not an improvement.
François
Just to satisfy my curiosity: what application might that be?
D.