On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote: > On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 May 2016 01:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >>>> How is this any better though? Complicated or not, people want to divide >>>> 1 by 2 and get 0.5. That is the functional requirement. Furthermore, they >>>> want to use the ordinary division symbol / rather than having to import >>>> some library or call a function. >>> >>> That's a circular argument. You're defining the result as the >>> requirement and then saying that proves the result is necessary. >>> Clearly, people managed when 1/2 returned 0, and continue to do so >>> today in Python 2 and other languages. >> >> I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result. > > OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine > a world beyond your own preconceptions. I am not saying that my view > is right, I'm just saying that yours is not automatically correct. > If you won't even concede that much then this conversation is pointless.
The point of arithmetic in software is to do what mathematics defines. Would you expect 1+2 to return 5? No. Why not? Where was the result defined? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
