Q: Feature Wish: "%" Extension

[Tim Peters]

[John Roth]
> ...
> See my comment above. I'm not refering to integer division.
> We've been around that circuit too many times to make
> it really appealing to do so again.

That's why I pointed out in my first reply that this thread had become
*about* integer division.  It hasn't been clear what you're on about, and
I'm glad to see it clarified.

> I'm refering to either rational (in the future) or real division,
> in both of which division is supposed to be the exact inverse
> of multiplication.

That's true of non-exceptional rationals but not of reals (by which I assume
you mean floating-point).  With floats, it's possible (actually common,
alas) to have non-exceptional a, b and c such that a*b == c but neither c/a
== b nor c/b == a.  Also possible to have a*b == c and c/a == b but not c/b
== a.  Float arithmetic is also an information-losing process (see last
reply).