[Tim] >> I'm unclear on why we warn about classic division when a float >> or complex is involved: [Guido] > ... > This warning is intended for perusal by a tool (yet to create) that > reads the warnings and can automatically fix your code by inserting > the proper future division statements and/or replace / by //. Got it now. Thanks! Cool idea, BTW. >> I would like to add OverflowError when coercion of long to float >> yields a senseless result. > Sounds OK to me. Anyone else object? >> Third issue: I don't see a *good* reason for the future-division >> >> x/(2*x) >> >> above not to return 0.5 [when x is a large long]. > Sure, but I also don't see a good reason to make this a priority. > It's a "don't care" corner of the language to me. Then I'll leave it alone, but I can't understand this view (it's not like we can claim we're victims of the platform C or libm here -- nonsense results in such cases are on our heads, and an implementation that settles for total loss of information when 53 good bits are obviously possible is at best careless).
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4