#15260: Integer division of reals and rationals
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: basic arithmetic | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jan Keitel, | Reviewers: Jeroen Demeyer,
Jeroen Demeyer | Thierry Monteil
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jdemeyer/ticket/15260 | a7dde8bebc558d4f3a7cff9f6c26dab40e2ec55b
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by tmonteil):
* status: needs_review => needs_info
* reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer => Jeroen Demeyer, Thierry Monteil
Comment:
The condition `if not other != 0:` looks weird. For real interval fields,
why not using `other.contains_zero()` which is both easier to understand
and faster ?
I do not understand the ad-hoc coercion that is made for `RealNumber`
where the precision of `self` takes predecence over the one of `other`.
Concerning `FieldElement` it is very dangerous to return the usual
division, since it will silently fail when the field in a subset of the
reals for which we did not define a `__floordiv__` method:
{{{
sage: RLF(5) // 2
2.5000000000000000?
sage: AA(5) // 2
5/2
}}}
What about trying `(self/other).floor()` and raising a
`NotImplementedError` if the method does not exist ?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15260#comment:18>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
