[Edu-sig] re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output

[Kirby Urner]

At 07:07 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Arthur wrote:
> >As I understand it, you wish there'd be some acknowledgement that
> >at some point in the evolutionary trajectory, there was a time
> >when newbie concerns seemed to weigh too heavily in the balance.
>
>Actually what I *wish* is that Michael Williams ruled the world.
>
>There I am in high asshole mode, contending with Williams of the "/" issue.
>
>And in the course of a few exchanges he made the following clear:
>
>1) Whether he liked or approved of me was not to a point.
>2) That he understood my position, in substance.

....Which I am still trying to do (only because you seem to
very much *want* to be understood).

You side-step my question, as to whether what you're after is
acknowledgement that a reasonable person reading the PEP at
some point in the past, might have concluded, as you apparently
did, that the behavior of the div operator was being changed
by Guido solely in order to mollify specific concerns, Sherwood's
& Pausch's in particular.

Not having that PEP in front of me, I'll give you the benefit of
the doubt and accept that a reasonable person might indeed so
conclude.  I might reassess my position if I ever revisit the
PEP as it appeared at that time, but I have no strong desire
to do that.

Then I'll go on to say that, ultimately, the case for making the
change wasn't about mollifying these individuals.  There are
good reasons for doing so completely aside from whether students
find 1/3=0 confusing on first exposure.

What I'm unclear on is whether you accept the relevance of these
other reasons.  Furthermore, I think one might reasonably doubt
that you really understand these reasons, as you consistently and
concertedly never seem to address them, which accounts for much
of the frustration with this thread I've seen expressed by others
(you're not the only one experiencing frustration).

In any case, my position is (a) you are not irrational for wanting
to insist that S&P might have, at one point in time, have at least
appeared to have had an unwarranted and detrimental influence over
Python's evolution (whether they did in reality is probably an
unknowable from my point of view) and (b) this is not at this point
in time an important point to make, as the change in div's behavior
is now recognized as a design improvement on technical grounds,
history and personalities aside.

That'll be my final word on this topic.  If you clarify further,
great, and if you choose not to, great.  At this point, it's all
water under the bridge.  I can't see spending a lot more time on
this footnote-to-a-footnote.

Kirby