Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint
Pascal Costanza
costanza at web.de
Mon Oct 27 20:46:54 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Mon Oct 27 20:46:54 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint
- Next message (by thread): Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:40:24 -0500, Matthew Danish wrote: > > >>Something that annoys me about many statically-typed languages is the >>insistence that arithmetic operations should return the same type as the >>operands. 2 / 4 is 1/2, not 0. Arithmetically, 1 * 1.0 is >>well-defined, so why can I not write this in an SML program? > > > Confusing integer division with rational division is not a consequence > of static typing, except that with static typing it's not as dangerous as > with dynamic typing (because a function declared as taking floating point > arguments and performing / on them will do the same even if you pass > integers to it, which in most languages will be automatically converted). Sorry, I don't get this. Why should it be more dangerous with dynamic typing? Common Lisp definitely gets this right, and most probably some other dynamically typed languages. > Mixed-type arithmetic is a different story. I'm talking only about 1/2 > being equal to 0 in some languages - this doesn't coincide with static > typing. Yes, dynamic vs static typing seems to be irrelevant here. (Although I wonder why you should need to distinguish between / and div...) Pascal
- Previous message (by thread): Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint
- Next message (by thread): Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list