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

[Kirby Urner]

At 09:15 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Arthur wrote:

>My position has *no* theoretical basis.  Beyond the fact that - and please
>don't jump all over me if there is something technical amiss in this
>wording - it better exposes the reality of what we are dealing with (a
>pretty thin wrapper around standard C, no?).

I'd say a pretty *thick* wrapper, if you judge in terms of the distance
between the respective semantics.  Python is not about trying to make
you think like a C programmer.

>And that is only my attempt to say in higher falutin language, that my point
>is experiental - not theoretical.  And not unlikely wrong.  Which you are
>well entitled to tell me. But I will definitely take it better if I think
>you have first taken in the practical point I am making.
>
>Michael did.

I think you're mislabeling other peoples' experience as "theoretical"
just because you don't happen to share those same experiences.  Kinda
like saying some people are theoretically experiencing starvation
right now.

It's a real experience (of frustration) trying to read complex code
written by others (or by oneself years previously).  The old behavior
of div made this even more frustrating.  This isn't just some ivory
tower view in comparison to which you represent all that is practical
and grounded.  I simply don't buy that premise.

>You haven't.

I've made my position clear:  you're not irrational for insisting
certain people at one time maybe had too much influence (maybe they
did), but beyond this, the technical arguments for changing the
behavior of div are in my view stronger than the arguments for
keeping it (you being one of many who preferred the status quo).

Your specific example of a "new confusion" drawn from Numeric did
not seem to speak to the issue in any direct way (I shouldn't
need to repeat why).

Kirby