[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Machin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Jackson) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> > A: 42
> >
> > Q: What multiple of 7 did I add to the critical expression in the Zeller
> > algorithm so it would remain nonnegative for the next few centuries?
>
Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> [C] isn't - it's a portable assembler.
>
> I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me. By definition,
> the syntax of an assembly language closely resembles the format of
> individual hardware instructions for a particula
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Jackson) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> A: 42
>
> Q: What multiple of 7 did I add to the critical expression in the Zeller
> algorithm so it would remain nonnegative for the next few centuries?
What are you calling "the Zeller algorithm", and what
Jive Dadson wrote:
> > Now, I'll agree with you if you want to argue that some machines do
> > negative integer division in stupifyingly horrible ways.
>
> That's why I think it was a stupifyingly horrible decision.
> Understandable, but in the end an s.h.d. nonetheless.
C language is chock-full
Jive Dadson wrote:
I've forgotten what we are arguing about, but I'm sure I'm right.
^^^ QOTW
--Scott David Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Grant Edwards wrote:
This is pretty much completely off-topic now. :)
No discussion of how lame other languages are is ever
completely off-topic in comp.lang.python. After all,
these discussions continue to remind us how lucky we
all are to be able to program in Python, and that
can only be a goo
On 2005-02-09, Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> intentionally
I disagree!
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... I don't like
at FRANK SINATRA or his
visi.comCHILDREN.
--
On 2005-02-09, Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[C] isn't - it's a portable assembler.
>>>
>>> I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me.
>>
>> I think the point is that C is a low-level, hardware twiddling
>> language to be used by people writing things like kernel code
intentionally
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> On 2005-02-09, Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> [C] isn't - it's a portable assembler.
> >
> > I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me.
>
> I think the point is that C is a low-level, hardware twiddling
> language to be used by people writi
On 2005-02-09, Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [C] isn't - it's a portable assembler.
>
> I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me.
I think the point is that C is a low-level, hardware twiddling
language to be used by people writing things like kernel code --
something th
Mike Meyer wrote:
>
> Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Python does it right. C is allowed to do it anyway it likes, which was
> > a stupifyingly horrible decision, IMHO.
>
> C only does it wrong if you think that C is a high level language.
I didn't say it does it wrong. I sai
Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Python does it right. C is allowed to do it anyway it likes, which was
> a stupifyingly horrible decision, IMHO.
C only does it wrong if you think that C is a high level language. It
isn't - it's a portable assembler. As such, low level things (like
this
Mark Jackson wrote:
> Imbaud Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > integer division and modulo gives different results in c and
python,
> > when negative numbers
> > are involved. take gdb as a widely available c interpreter
> > print -2 /3
> > 0 for c, -1 for python.
> > more amazing, modulos o
Python does it right. C is allowed to do it anyway it likes, which was
a stupifyingly horrible decision, IMHO.
Way back when, there was a language named Pascal. I lobbied the Pascal
standards committee to define the modulus operator correctly, which they
eventually did. To my astonishment, they
Imbaud Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> integer division and modulo gives different results in c and python,
> when negative numbers
> are involved. take gdb as a widely available c interpreter
> print -2 /3
> 0 for c, -1 for python.
> more amazing, modulos of negative number give negative v
Imbaud Pierre wrote:
integer division and modulo gives different results in c and python,
when negative numbers
are involved. take gdb as a widely available c interpreter
print -2 /3
0 for c, -1 for python.
more amazing, modulos of negative number give negative values! (in c).
from an algebraic p
Imbaud Pierre wrote:
integer division and modulo gives different results in c and python,
when negative numbers
are involved. take gdb as a widely available c interpreter
print -2 /3
0 for c, -1 for python.
more amazing, modulos of negative number give negative values! (in c).
from an algebraic p
Imbaud> integer division and modulo gives different results in c and
Imbaud> python, when negative numbers are involved.
http://www.python.org/doc/faq/programming.html#why-does-22-10-return-3
Skip
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
19 matches
Mail list logo
