airwin added the comment: You can easily prove the limit is correct for real numbers. So I would be willing to accept as a resolution of this issue that the type of division that is going on here is real. However, that is a bit disquieting since if you try a real slice index you get "TypeError: slice indices must be integers or None or have an __index__ method". Thus, m < real limit test is a comparison of an integer and real which implies m gets changed to real before the comparison. Which obviously gives the correct result in the 1.5 case, but in general I dislike real comparisons where the distinction between < and <=, for example, can get blurred because of potential roundoff issues with reals. So I think my suggested one-sentence resolution to the issue is better then updating the documentation to clarify what kind of division is occurring in the limit.
---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28614> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
