On Feb 28, 10:41 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cybersource.com.au> wrote: [...] > The interesting case is -1/2. According to the argument that "2 doesn't > go into 1", -1/2 should also return 0. But that's not what Python > returns, so it looks like the "int division" camp is screwed no matter > whether Python keeps the status quo or the other status quo.
I'm in the "int division camp" and I like that -1 / 2 is -1. It's nice because I can be sure that for any p and q: * 0 <= p%q < q * p = q*(p/q) + p%q In other words, p/q is the largest r such that rq <= p. It ensures that / and % are well behaved in a lot of situations, e.g: * (x - y)%n == 0 if and only if x%n == y%n * if a/n == b/n then abs(a - b) < n ... So that doesn't screw me, on the contrary I find it a mathematically very sound decision. What screws me is that I'm going to have to type p//q in the future. -- Arnaud -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
