Issue #2121 has been updated by Run Paint Run Run.


>  Run Paint Run suggested that 1.9 SHOULD produce a Rational or maybe a
> float as the result of dividing two integers, because "that what Guido
> would do."

He said, of course, no such thing. I suggest that when your strawman necessitates the sensationalist mis-characterization of another's position that amateur rhetoric may not be your calling. In fact, your pastiche is not even internally consistent because GvR did not advocate rational results.

I was simply illustrating that other, similar languages have faced this issue, and so providing a justification for, and the results of, their decisions. 
 
> The brutal facts are that there's is lots of code written in Ruby, and
> lots of that code uses integer divide, and would be broken if this
> change were made, it would be the same as silently including mathn in
> every existing ruby program, which seems like a bad idea.

The same argument can always be rallied to support inertia. As we progress toward Ruby 2.0 it behooves us to revisit our prior decisions and consider whether they remain defensible in hindsight. Further, your analogy is flawed: it would not at all "be the same as silently including mathn in every existing ruby program", because neither would such a change in language semantics be ushered in "silently", nor does _mathn_ perform only this function.

> Which I guess indicates that "that's what Matz would do."

The existence of an "infallible designer" would obviate this very bug tracker, as every aspect of the language could be reasoned so. It indicates what the current behavior is, nothing more.

As to the matter at hand, Brian's solution seems eminently reasonable for 1.8 at least; the desired behavior of _mathn_ and '/' under 1.9 is perhaps a separate issue.
----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2121

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org