On 2016-05-23, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Are you trying to compete with him for the Missing The Point Award? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
