Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Rounding Integers as int

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, at 8:00 AM, Larry Garfield wrote: ]> If there's some math reason that we cannot have those functions return > int (someone mentioned there was, but I don't really understand it and > the RFC does not explain it at all), then we should at least keep > consistency in the return type. "Sometimes I have to cast the return > value before I can actually use it in the obvious way, sometimes I > don't" is not a good situation. The round() function has to be able to return float because has an optional precision parameter. So round(3.14, 1) returns 3.1. I agree that there doesn't appear to be much of a reason that ceil() and floor() should be returning float. The documentation for ceil() says: The return value of ceil() is still of type float as the value range of float is usually bigger than that of int. Jim