This patch adds the 'fpconst' module, described in
PEP754 to the standard python library.  It includes
both the source code and the documentation.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=139309

Is there a reason why you don't use the struct.pack endian markers?  You 
could get rid of all the code that deals with _big_endian if you just prefixed 
the formats with ! or >

Logged In: YES 
user_id=9316

Response to etrepum:

Actually, I tried using '!' and '>' without success before
resorting to the big_endian_ check...

-Greg

Logged In: YES 
user_id=139309

Maybe you did something wrong, because I tried it and it worked fine.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=356893

There are some typos in the docstrings: in[i]finity and
exponent[ent].

Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

For Python 2.5 you should indeed be able to use the "<d"
struct format and have it behave itself.  Also, you should
probably do something like:

if not float.__getformat__('double').startswith('IEEE'):
     raise ImportError, "platform appears not to support
IEEE arithmetic"

In my experience, isNaN and isInf are usually spelt isnan
and isinf (e.g. in C99), and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

The tests should go in a separate file, of course.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=849994

Is there an interest of getting this into 2.5?

Logged In: YES 
user_id=9316

Yes, there is still interest in getting this into 2.5.

This being a PEP, it can't go into Python without the PEP being accepted first, by BDFL pronouncement (see PEP 1). So as long as this hasn't happened, this patch cannot go in.

Wouldn't it be better to include this directly in the language, and have float.isNaN(), float.isInf(), ..., or perhaps globals inNaN(), ..., ?

In any case, what would it take to move this forward then? Python is sorely lacking this.

kousu: write a competing PEP, or work with the author of PEP 754 to revise his specification. This tracker is inappropriate to design the feature given that there is a PEP available. Please follow the procedure for Python enhancements.

Since PEP 754 has been rejected, I think this issue can be closed.

As noted at the top of PEP 754, much of the functionality of the patch is 
already included (in somewhat different form) in 2.6 and 3.0.