Hello,
I was suggesting it for inclusion in Sage, both to ease the transition
to Python 3 and to make its behaviour more appropriate for a CAS.
However, as some users have pointed out, it does not maintain
precision, and it is still used by some for floor division. Perhaps it
is not yet ready.
--
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Eviatar wrote:
> An alternative would be to make standard Python functions (such as
> count) return Integer objects, but this would make it incompatible
> with vanilla Python.
-1, think of the effort involved, and the performance hit we'd take
--
To post to this
An alternative would be to make standard Python functions (such as
count) return Integer objects, but this would make it incompatible
with vanilla Python.
On Jan 18, 11:33 pm, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:20 am, Simon King wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, eventually we will have Python 3.*, a
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> Python 3's division for integers is quite unsuitable for a computer
> algebra system.
Python 2's division for integers is also quite unsuitable for a
computer algebra system:
>>> 1/2
0
But Sage fixes this:
sage: 1/2
1/2
Since floor divisio
On Jan 18, 1:20 am, Simon King wrote:
> 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?
Because it can give the wrong answer :-). In Python 3:
>>> int(10**40/10**10)
1198846248386
Oh, I wasn't aware people actually used this for floor division, I had
assumed everyone used //. I guess it wouldn't be good to change it now
then.
When is the change to Python 3 going to be, by the way? If Unladen
Swallow gets implemented, it might give some motivation for the switch.
--
To pos
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi pang!
>
> On 18 Jan., 09:52, pang 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: C
Hi pang!
On 18 Jan., 09:52, pang 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
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.
--
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...@googlegr
