Future division patch available (PEP 238)
Stephen Horne
steve at lurking.demon.co.uk
Mon Jul 23 03:20:08 EDT 2001
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Mon Jul 23 03:20:08 EDT 2001
- Previous message (by thread): Future division patch available (PEP 238)
- Next message (by thread): Future division patch available (PEP 238)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 23 Jul 2001 06:28:48 GMT, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak at knm.org.pl> wrote: >Integers are exact!!! That's the point: if numbers represent inexact >quantities, they should be expressed as floats. Since working with >integers and rationals is predictable and +-*/div,mod give correct >(with int/int->rational), they should be used when we want to know the >true answer. If it's not possible anyway, use floats and don't waste >computation time for the 100th decimal place which is wrong anyway. If I say my local shop is 1 mile away, is that exact? I don't thinks so ;-) Rounding to an integer is much more common even than rounding to decimal places. The problem comes when people confuse this with dealin with an integer measure. Distance is a real measure which is most conveniently and accurately approximated using floats - so use floats and be done with it. If you are working with naturally integer measures then yes, integers are exact - and integer division is the only division that makes sense. If you are working with measures that are inherently real, than using an integer to represent the value is no more exact than if you used a float - less so, in fact, as the float has much more precision. In such cases float division makes sense, but you should have been using floats anyway because it was naturally a real arithmetic problem.
- Previous message (by thread): Future division patch available (PEP 238)
- Next message (by thread): Future division patch available (PEP 238)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list