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

[Arthur]

Kirby writes -

>I don't find this on-the-face-of-it persuasive, as then any
>counter-intuitive wrinkle X in any language (any "wart") could
>be justified as "reminding the newbie to give attention to X".

What I am experiencing - that is, from my point of view - I am trying to
talk about something very specific in a very specific way, and mostly,
having my point defeated by talking it to absurdium by resorting to
generalities about mega-design issues.

Perhaps, one of my key points is that nothing can be generalized from this
particular specific, nor do I see myself attempting to advocate any
generalization that can be made.  I honestly don't see one .

The old "/" operator is a gotcha if one choses to see it that way.  I had
told you in a private note some time ago, that I found it a particulary
nasty gotcha when raising to a fractional power. From an experiential point
of view, that tended to be the only time I would *actually* get caught with
my pants down.

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.

With no generalizations to be made beyond that observation.

Art