On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > Hi pang! > > On 18 Jan., 09:52, pang <pablo.ang...@uam.es> wrote: >> That would be a greater confusion: we'd have the Sage layer, and >> underlying that you wouldn't have neither python 2 nor python 3, but a >> mixture. > > Or you could argue the other way around: Currently, we have the layer > of Sage `Integer`s and the layer of Python `int`s, both are supposed > to model integer numbers, but both behave totally different with > respect to division. > > However, I am not +1 to the suggestion of __future__ importing > division. Some people (including myself, thus, the set is non-empty) > sometimes use Python `int`s on purpose *and* use that the division is > floor division. > > On the other hand, eventually we will have Python 3.*, and thus why > should I not get used to write int(i/j) instead of i/j, for `int`s i > and j? So, I am not -1 either.
Write i // j to be unambiguous (and faster, and avoid rounding issue messiness), though I use i/j with the intent of it being truncating as well. I think this would be a hugely backwards incompatible change, and should probably happen at the 2.x -> 3.x transition where it'd more natural to make such a change. - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
