> > > // 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". As I said in the other thread, it's too early to make the decision -- just present both options in the PEP, and arguments pro/con for each. > > 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. Fair enough. > [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. Understood. > You haven't commented yet about the rational PEP, so I don't know if that's > even an option. Yes I have, but in summary, I still think rationals are a bad idea. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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