On Wed, 20 May 2015 04:19 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info>: > >> On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:59 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >>> You're slaying straw men. >> >> "I was wrong, but I don't want to admit it" is not spelled "straw man". >> >> You made a claim that was not defensible, and I tore that claim to >> shreds. Have the good grace to admit that your earlier position: >> >> "it doesn't matter what semantic description you give Python >> constructs as long as the observed behavior is correct" > > I stand by that position and haven't changed it. > >> doesn't stand up to scrutiny. > > But it does.
Right. So you stand by the position that this explanation for how the Python interpreter does integer arithmetic is equally good as any other: There is a little magic elf hiding inside the computer, and when you type an expression like '2 + 3', little tiny hammers bang it out in Morse Code on the elf's head; in response, the elf calculates the answer on his teeny tiny abacus and passes it back to the interpreter. The elf also does calculations with decimal numbers like '1.1*2.3', but they're harder which explains why sometimes the elf gets the calculations slightly wrong. Since this explanation explains the observed behaviour, according to you it is equally valid as one involving, you know, actual facts. Why am I talking to you? -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
