In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Martin v. Lowis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the ambiguity is that 'int' behaviour is unspecified for floats - is > > it naive to suggest we specify the behaviour? > > The concern is that whatever gets specified is arbitrary. There are many > ways how an int can be constructed from a float, so why is any such way > better than the others, and deserves to be the meaning of int()? But something should be specified. Users should be able to expect consistent behavior. Surely there must be some efficiency reason why it is not specified (e.g. it uses a low-level C call that is not specified)??? I agree with the idea of putting trunc in the math library since it seems to similar to floor. -- Russell _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
