On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One possibility (that may be opening a can of worms) is to have two > sets of operators, one that does "native" semantics (C for cdef longs, > Python for Python ints) and one that does Python semantics even on > cdef longs. I leave it to you to decide which one gets blessed with > "%" and which has to use the alternate ("~%"? there's a whole PEP > sitting around which goes over various options). Without going into the whole pep 225 discussion, would it make sense for this particular case only, to consider instead a new %% operator? It could be the partner to the (/,//) pair that provide Python/C semantics for division, perhaps. That way, we'd know that the division-like operators come in 2 variants. We already know that the moment we do cdef i that thing will not behave like a python int (e.g., its overflow behavior becomes constrained to what happens inside of a finite bit-width, instead of having Python's auto-growth into arbitrary length ints). So it seems acceptable to me that once I cdef integer variables, I'll need to keep the C/Python semantics in mind for / and %, and having pairs (/,//), (%,%%) of operators to access each type of behavior sounds reasonable to me. Just a thought. Cheers, f _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion