RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jan 28 18:07:34 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076593.html

In article <47992363.3010402 at v.loewis.de>,
 "Martin v. Lowis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:

> > If the ambiguity is that 'int' behaviour is unspecified for floats - is 
> > it naive to suggest we specify the behaviour?
> 
> The concern is that whatever gets specified is arbitrary. There are many
> ways how an int can be constructed from a float, so why is any such way
> better than the others, and deserves to be the meaning of int()?

But something should be specified. Users should be able to expect 
consistent behavior. Surely there must be some efficiency reason why it 
is not specified (e.g. it uses a low-level C call that is not 
specified)???

I agree with the idea of putting trunc in the math library since it 
seems to similar to floor.

-- Russell

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076593.html below:

[Python-Dev] [python] trunc()