re bad leadership

[David Bolen]

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at home.com> writes:

> > So why not swap the proposed meanings of // and /?  I realize this
> is the
> > third time I've said this but I think it would silence a lot of
> objections
> > and no one seems to have noticed the other two times.
> 
> This would break as much or more code as the current proposal.  Read
> the PEP.

Are you sure?  I can't really see anything in the PEP that would seem
to imply this.  It talks about comparing // to functions like div(),
but not the use of // for the new behavior over /.

I can't see how this approach would break _any_ code, since // isn't
an operator now and thus can't be used in any other way by current
code.  In fact, it parses as a syntax error.

I buy the obvious aesthetic argument about really wanting to fix the
obvious division operator, /, but can't see how using // would have
any backwards-compatibility problems.

--
-- David
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \               David Bolen            \   E-mail: db3l at fitlinxx.com  /
  |             FitLinxx, Inc.            \  Phone: (203) 708-5192    |
 /  860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT  06902   \  Fax: (203) 316-5150     \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/