On Tuesday, 6 September 2011 13:01:53 UTC+8, leif wrote: > > On 6 Sep., 06:36, Dima Pasechnik <dim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 6 September 2011 11:08:02 UTC+8, leif wrote: > > > [...]
> > > Of course int(n)^-k should be int(1)/int(n)^k, yielding either a > Python int or float, to stay "pythonic", or, more precisely, within > Python types. > In Python 2, int(1)/int(m) is either 0 or 1, so, what are you talking about? Do you propose to change how Python 2 behaves? > > > (unless you want to stay Pythonic, and get int(1)/int()^k, i.e. 0 in > Python > > 2, which would be > > even more stupid than the current conversion into float) > > I consider this just a Python "bug" (perhaps inherited from early bad > design), since Python (now) does have explicit integer / truncating > division, a // b. how does this help? $ python Python 2.6.1 (r261:67515, Jun 24 2010, 21:47:49) [GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5646)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 1//3 0 >>> indeed, one can do >>> from __future__ import division >>> 1/3 0.33333333333333331 bu this is beside the point. > > > > > Now, as int()^-k should to be Integer, so should be int()^k, too. > > The former shouldn't, so the latter shouldn't either. ;-) > > it shouldn't in your imagination only, but not in present Sage's Python. Dima > > -leif > -- 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
