From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29110 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2015 20:58:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 34242 Received: (qmail 25357 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2015 20:58:26 -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=eU9hTuDD8Zxpg9gGyKEu9Q==:117 a=eU9hTuDD8Zxpg9gGyKEu9Q==:17 a=Hpgzp-inWqAA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=ckXJ_ItEKH6rkh4YxXwA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 Message-id: <54B2E3EF.3080609@eastlink.ca> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:58:23 -0800 From: Ray Andrews 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: Floating point modulus References: <1420807419-9270-1-git-send-email-mikachu@gmail.com> <54B013C5.6090307@eastlink.ca> <54B04A7A.1010402@eastlink.ca> <20150109223028.6e003bff@ntlworld.com> <54B066C5.3010008@eastlink.ca> <54B0D893.4080202@eastlink.ca> <510FB8E2-EA0C-4582-BD31-527E9755F0FB@larryv.me> <54B1ACA3.1050001@eastlink.ca> <150110175849.ZM21774@torch.brasslantern.com> <54B20E23.8090900@eastlink.ca> <150110231017.ZM24021@torch.brasslantern.com> <54B2CE31.1080908@eastlink.ca> <150111120042.ZM10088@torch.brasslantern.com> In-reply-to: <150111120042.ZM10088@torch.brasslantern.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 01/11/2015 12:00 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Jan 11, 11:25am, Ray Andrews wrote: > } > } Expectation you say. Wouldn't it be polite for the docs to at least > } mention that? > > The documentation has long been a sore spot, because it was originally > written to only cover things that were different about zsh (from other > shells) You know, that is one of those sentences you make every now and then that turns an entire fog bank into clear air. *now* I understand how to understand why the doc seems so faulty ... it was/is an addendum! And it's been patched up ever since, but never was a 'full document' from it's beginning, so of course it's full of gaps. > } Perhaps it's presumptuous of me to discuss this, but could a > } time not come when zsh is no longer chained to past practice? When > } decisions are based on merit, not on what ksh '79 did? > > Assuming I agree (which I don't) with your implication that decisions are > not already based on merit: so far you haven't convinced me that this > would result in anything other than a lot of arguments about "merit." Well, no doubt there would be some judgment calls on merit, no avoiding that. But since I've been involved ... actually the current issue is a small but probably perfect test case. If one ignored past practice and was concerned with maximum utility and most intuitive implementation, and one was designing a shell that had a built in calculator, and one was to decide what the answer should be to this expression: 1/2 + 1/2 = ... I think we'd all agree the answer is '1'. Why isn't it? Because of past practice. Thus Google's Library of Babel is plugged up with people asking over and over again why shell arithmetic seems to be busted. It's busted because of past practice. The justification for leaving it busted is just that it has always been busted, so should always remain busted. Is that merit? I'll bet anyone 50 cents that for every person who wants 1/2 + 1/2 = 0, there are a thousand people who want it to equal one.