re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output)
But I have the ability to foresee where Bruce's and Michael's students are most likely to get caught with *their* pants down, under the new operator. Which are ways even more subtle, IMO, but just as likely to arise as with my raised to a power issue. So, on the gotcha score - at best a wash, IMO.
Kirby writes -
(You don't spell out the gotchas with the new behavior -- examples might have been nice.)
Gotchas with the new behavior are not directly gotchas with the new behavior. They are gotchas that arise when being blindsided by the fact that numeric typing matters. Something clear to anyone functioning under the old system. The one I raised to Michael was:
fromNumeric import * a=array([1,2,3]) a[1]=.5 a array([1, 0, 3])
Huh? under new "/" ouch - I should have seen that coming under old "/" Michael acknowledged that that exact situation had already arisen and thrown folks for a loop in his class. Which is what was so bizarre to me about the discussion. That 1/2 = 0 would be an intial surprise to Bruce's students is so obviously true that it isn't worth mentioning. We could have all agreed as a starting point - relying on nothing but our common sense - that we got an issue on our hands. What might have been productive and interesting and actually a little scientific, is to test the full reprecussions of the*change* to 1/2 = .5 for Bruce's students. And then *begin* a discussion of pros and cons. And *I'm* the English major. Art
At 08:34 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Arthur wrote:
But I have the ability to foresee where Bruce's and Michael's students are most likely to get caught with *their* pants down, under the new operator. Which are ways even more subtle, IMO, but just as likely to arise as with my raised to a power issue. So, on the gotcha score - at best a wash, IMO.
Kirby writes -
(You don't spell out the gotchas with the new behavior -- examples might have been nice.)
Gotchas with the new behavior are not directly gotchas with the new behavior. They are gotchas that arise when being blindsided by the fact that numeric typing matters. Something clear to anyone functioning under the old system.
The one I raised to Michael was:
fromNumeric import * a=array([1,2,3]) a[1]=.5 a array([1, 0, 3])
Huh? under new "/" ouch - I should have seen that coming under old "/"
OK, now look at this:
from Numeric import * b = array([1,2,3]) b[1] = 'a' b array([ 1, 97, 3])
Same issue, yet very clearly this has nothing whatever to do with the behavior of div, either way. We're facing the fact that Numeric doesn't allow mixing types inside an array type. To bring div into it only confuses the issue. 'a' is being coerced to an int:
ord('a') 97
Note that Numeric is extrinsic to core Python and has a number of dialectical wrinkles. Closer to home would have been to use the array module itself, which takes the type as a first argument, thereby clarifying what's going on:
from array import * b = array([1,2,3]) # can't get away without declaring type Traceback (most recent call last): File "<pyshell#1>", line 1, in ? b = array([1,2,3]) TypeError: array() takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given) b = array('i',[1,2,3]) b array('i', [1, 2, 3]) b[1] = 'a' # doesn't coerce (unlike Numeric) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<pyshell#4>", line 1, in ? b[1] = 'a' TypeError: an integer is required b[1] = 2. b # ah, so there's automatic coercion of floats array('i', [1, 2, 3]) b[1] = 2.1 # ... akin to going int(2.1) b array('i', [1, 2, 3])
Michael acknowledged that that exact situation had already arisen and thrown folks for a loop in his class.
No doubt. Linking this to the behavior of div (which doesn't change either way) would have only confused them more.
And *I'm* the English major.
Art
Any serious study of programming qua programming (philosophy major) involves studying types,. And, as Danny Yoo pointed out above, you *don't* want to use Python as your primary vehicle for studying types. Any programming course that just looks at one and only one computer language isn't really a programming course, the way I see it. It's fine to *concentrate* on one language, but you need others in the picture to compare and contast. The argument can be made that "mono-lingual computer programmer" is an oxymoron (as an English major, you no doubt grok). Kirby
participants (2)
-
Arthur -
Kirby Urner