On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com> wrote:
> > // Operator
>
> Note: we could wind up using a different way to spell this operator,
> e.g. Pascal uses 'div'. The disadvantage of 'div' is that it
> introduces a new reserved word, with all the issues it creates. The
> disadvantage of '//' is that it means something very different to Java
> and C++ users.
I have zero (0) intuition about what is better. You choose --- I have
no opinions on this. If we do go the "div" route, I need to also think
up a syntactic migration path once I figure out the parsing issues
involved. This isn't an argument -- just something you might want to
consider before pronouncing on "div".
> Maybe for compatibility of bytecode files we should come up with a
> better name, e.g. FLOAT_DIV?
Hmmmm.....a bytecode files so far have failed to be compatible for
any revision. I have no problems with that, just that I feel that if
we're serious about comptability, we should say so, and if we're not,
then half-assed measures will not help.
[re: from __future__ import non_integer_division]
> I find "non_integer_division" rather long. Maybe it should be called
> "float_division"?
I have no problems with that -- except that if the rational PEP is accepted,
then this would rational_integer_division, and I didn't want to commit
myself yet.
You haven't commented yet about the rational PEP, so I don't know if that's
even an option.
--
"I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
-- Wichert Akkerman (on debian-private)| easier, more seductive.
For public key, finger moshez@debian.org |http://www.{python,debian,gnu}.org
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