Changing the Division Operator -- PEP 238, rev 1.12

Arthur_Siegel at rsmi.com Arthur_Siegel at rsmi.com
Tue Jul 31 01:14:17 CEST 2001


>>In article <mailman.996289972.15493.python-list at python.org>, Arthur
>>Siegel <ajs at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> Would be a lot more compelling were they reports *from* rather than
>> reports *about*.

>Agreed.  But what struck me was that when a non-programmer came to a
>Python discussion list asking whether Python was suitable for his
>project, several people warning him about the pitfalls of division (and
>not much else).

Must have missed all this.  Where and when was this thread?

I guess I remain the odd ball.  If a non-programmer asked me about
using Python for a project, I would certainly explain to him that he/she had
picked a good alternative,  because between him and his project was
a little barrier  - learning to program.  Python is *great* for that.  

Among the many things he will need to learn about is numerical types,
and how they work in Python.  Which I can promise him is not going to be
anything near the high water mark of the learning curve.

What I am missing.  Why are we talking about the programming projects of 
non-programmers? Why isn't that simply dismissed as an absurd  
contradiction in terms? 

Have absolutely no interest in re-opening the discussion about the / 
operator. Other than the code breakage issue,  I have never in fact heard an
argument *against* it that I found truly compelling.  But I can tell you that 
the 
first person accounts posted here of what is faced by developers maintaining 
substantial code bases are real and compelling.

Isn't it clear that  the thread that it is all quite necessary  to  meet the 
programming 
language specification requirements of people who don't actually program  (is 
there
another definition of non-programmer that I am missing) - is an incitement, 
not an explanation.

ART 




More information about the Python-list mailing list