On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:10:13 -0800 (PST) Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 28, 3:30 am, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Automatic conversions, okay... but converting a result when all > > inputs are of one time, NO... > > People, this is so cognitive dissonance it's not even funny.
I'll say. > There is absolutely nothing obvious about 1/2 returning a number that > isn't at least approximately equal to one half. There is nothing self- > evident about operations maintaining types. Not obvious to you. You are using subjective perception as if it was a law of nature. If "obvious" was the criteria then I would argue that the only proper result of integer division is (int, int). Give me the result and the remainder and let me figure it out. > You people can't tell the difference between "obvious" and "learned > conventions that came about because in limitations in the hardware at > the time". Nobody would have come up with a silly rule like "x op y > must always have the same type as x and y" if computer hardware had > been up to the task when these languages were created. What makes you say they weren't? Calculating machines that handled floating point are older than Python by far. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
