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

[Kirby Urner]

At 08:02 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Arthur wrote:

> >If you clarify further, great, and if you choose not to, great.
>
>Oh Lord why must I be so misunderstood?

I didn't want to go back and reread all Michael's comments in order
to understand *your* position (better you should just be misunderstood).

I was hoping you'd just answer my particular question.  Oh well...

>I am certainly not saying that Michael either understands or gives two shits
>about my "position" as to the historical record.  I am saying I think he
>understands the trade-off I raise between making the div operator more
>intuitive for the physics student, and lulling them into a false sense of
>security as to the importance of the underlying typing.

I conclude that you don't yourself understand the importance of typing,
or you wouldn't wish div to remain so ambiguous.

>To repeat.
>
>He disagrees with me, though, as to where I come out..

I wasn't trying to understand what you're saying about Michael.  I was
repeating a question I'd asked you before -- not related to Michael's
comments in any way.

>Guess what, I can handle that fine.
>
>Art

And I guess I can handle irrelevance.

End of story (how many times will I say that?).

Kirby