Raymond Hettinger wrote: > I think this would harm more than it would help. It more confusing to > have several rounding-thingies to choose from than it is have an > explicit two-step.
But is it more confusing enough to be worth forcing everyone to pay two function calls instead of one in the most common case? If I'm right that rounding-to-int is much more commonly needed than rounding-to-float, the least confusing thing would be for the builtin round() to return an int, and have something somewhere else, such as math.fround(), for round-to-float. > BTW, I thought the traditional idiom (for positive numbers) was: > int(x+.5) It's the "for positive numbers" that's the problem there. Most of my uses for round() involve graphics coordinates, which I can't be sure won't be negative. It's not immediately obvious what this will do with negative numbers. It's not even immediately obvious that it's doing round-to-nearest-integer unless you're familiar with the idiom. A single well-named function would be much more explicit. -- Greg _______________________________________________ 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
