Hi Masa, here is what Python answered me when I asked it to do the same: root [13] /cdf/upgrade/tracking/murat/g3/test>python Python 1.4 (Jul 29 1997) [GCC 2.7.2.1] Copyright 1991-1995 Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam >>> 9999999999+9999999999 OverflowError: integer literal too large Sounds reasonable. -regards, pasha. Masaharu Goto writes: > Pasha, > > The power operator '**' and '@' are the original extention of CINT. These > operators are defined both for int and double. There is no error error check > in int version. Sinse, cint is there for some time, change has to be done > carefully. If everybody agrees printing an error message in such case, I'll > do so. Or if everybody agrees eliminating power operator for 'int' , it is > even easier. > > Masaharu Goto > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Urs, you're definitely right, but this doesn't make the life safer > - a simple misprint could lead to the results being completely > screwed up. I think there should be kind of check of argument validity range, > otherwise one gets: > > root [28] 9999999999+9999999999 > (int)(-2) > > -regards, pasha. > Urs Langenegger writes: > > > > I think that has less to do with '**' but with (int). If I cast onto > > (double), everything works fine for me. > > > > Cheers, > > --U.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:34:40 MET