We feel like this may make sense to bring up, too:
https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2169-euclidean-modulo.html
On 2022-03-20 04:06, Om Joshi wrote:
> Has anyone in this thread linked this blog post yet?
>
> http://python-history.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-pythons-integer-division-floors.html
>
> Mu
Has anyone in this thread linked this blog post yet?
http://python-history.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-pythons-integer-division-floors.html
Much is a rehash of this thread but for completeness it might be useful to read
Guido van Rossum's thoughts and the subsequent discussion in the comments
sect
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 8:30 PM MRAB wrote:
> Wikipedia describes Euclidean division.
>
> Basically, the modulo is non-negative:
>
> a == b * q + r where 0 <= r < abs(b)
That convention in the Wikipedia article dates back to a 2004 edit by
an anonymous (IP) editor. The only reference in that
On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 03:49:28PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Steven D'Aprano ]
> > Sure, for floats. I certainly wouldn't want to change the behaviour for
> > floats. We could change the behaviour for ints (or at least we could if
> > not constrained by backwards compatibility) or add a new funct
[Steven D'Aprano ]
> Sure, for floats. I certainly wouldn't want to change the behaviour for
> floats. We could change the behaviour for ints (or at least we could if
> not constrained by backwards compatibility) or add a new function.
We could - but why would we? Just because a thing _can_ be don
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:16:47PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Steven D'Aprano [\
> > Alas, math.remainder goes through float:
> >
> > >>> math.remainder(3**500, 3) # Should be 0.
> > 1.0
> > >>> math.remainder(3**500 + 2, 3) # Should be 2.
> > 1.0
>
> You mean -1 here: remainder() returns a mem
[Steven D'Aprano [\
> Alas, math.remainder goes through float:
>
> >>> math.remainder(3**500, 3) # Should be 0.
> 1.0
> >>> math.remainder(3**500 + 2, 3) # Should be 2.
> 1.0
You mean -1 here: remainder() returns a member of the equivalence
class with least absolute value, and abs(-1) < abs(2).
On 2022-03-19 02:38, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Hi Nathan, and welcome!
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:13:16AM -, Nathan Levett wrote:
First time posting here ~ I've recently encountered that python does
not have an OOTB operator for modulo that is consistent with Euclidean
division. Although it
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 04:26:54PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
> Another choice is made by math.remainder:
>
> >>> import math
> >>> math.remainder(7, 10)
> -3.0
Alas, math.remainder goes through float:
>>> math.remainder(3**500, 3) # Should be 0.
1.0
>>> math.remainder(3**500 + 2, 3) # Should
Hi Nathan, and welcome!
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:13:16AM -, Nathan Levett wrote:
> First time posting here ~ I've recently encountered that python does
> not have an OOTB operator for modulo that is consistent with Euclidean
> division. Although it should be easy for anyone who wants thi
[Nathan Levett ]
> First time posting here ~ I've recently encountered that python does not
> have an OOTB operator for modulo that is consistent with Euclidean
> division.
You need to be very explicit about what you intend - my best guess
about what you intend isn't supported directly by any prog
On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 07:16, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 8:31 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> if y < 0: return -(x // -y), x % y
>
>
> I think that should be
>
> if y < 0: return -(x // -y), x % -y
>
Hmm. According to Wikipedia [1] the result of divmod(7,-3) shoul
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 8:31 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> if y < 0: return -(x // -y), x % y
I think that should be
if y < 0: return -(x // -y), x % -y
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pyt
On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 02:09, Nathan Levett wrote:
>
> Howdy python gang,
>
> First time posting here ~ I've recently encountered that python does not have
> an OOTB operator for modulo that is consistent with Euclidean division.
> Although it should be easy for anyone who wants this to create i
Are you speaking of how to generalize modulo to negative numbers (about
which programming languages vary)?
The bar for adding new syntax to Python is VERY high. Probably easier is
getting a function in the `math` module. But even there, you'll need to
explain what behavior you want AND why that be
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:09 PM Nathan Levett
wrote:
> Howdy python gang,
>
> First time posting here ~ I've recently encountered that python does not
> have an OOTB operator for modulo that is consistent with Euclidean
> division.
Are you referring to something different than the divmod built
Can you give some examples of how it would be used differently than the
current modulo operator and what value it would bring?
For those who have not taken number theory courses in a long time (or
never!) it's not clear how this would be useful for Python.
Damian (he/him)
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at
17 matches
Mail list logo
