From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-34228-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 13367 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2015 05:10:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 34228
Received: (qmail 28102 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2015 05:10:21 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=X+5rdgje c=1 sm=1 tr=0
 a=409km5Jzyi9hcadZZk99kQ==:117 a=409km5Jzyi9hcadZZk99kQ==:17 a=Hpgzp-inWqAA:10
 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=p1Kb8OYCw2x9-wR0o2QA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
Message-id: <54B205B8.4080208@eastlink.ca>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:10:16 -0800
From: Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0
MIME-version: 1.0
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: Math expression evaluation error?
References: <54B03024.1030309@gmail.com> <20150109201552.1304eafe@ntlworld.com>
 <54B04ADA.9050102@gmail.com> <54B05407.7090303@eastlink.ca>
 <775A96D9-12A6-499B-8AAB-B2431F13701D@larryv.me>
 <54B069A9.2040504@eastlink.ca>
 <CAH+w=7Yq40Ksd-Y49hoBLexS+-o-CQHjtZ34k5zksY+g6W0=cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <54B0D451.1000502@eastlink.ca> <150110085320.ZM28012@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <54B173ED.20301@eastlink.ca> <150110111445.ZM21328@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <54B1A5EC.2080202@eastlink.ca> <150110175103.ZM21764@torch.brasslantern.com>
In-reply-to: <150110175103.ZM21764@torch.brasslantern.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 01/10/2015 05:51 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Because there is such a thing as standardized behavior across shells,
> and while it is fine to add or extend features, egregiously changing
> the behavior of the common subset is generally a bad idea.

Sure.  That's the best argument for leaving it alone and of course it is
perfectly sound.  I'd go the other way, liking friendliness more, but
I respect your decision. And I could be quite wrong about 1/2 + 1/2 = 0,
strange as it looks to me, rounding down could be vital to some code
somewhere.