Thomas Heller wrote:
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Eric Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have this ready for checkin (with docs and tests). I'd like to get it
in for this beta, since it does involved changed behavior
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: "Eric Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> I have this ready for checkin (with docs and tests). I'd like to get it
>>> in for this beta, since it does involved changed behavior, no matt
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Eric Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I have this ready for checkin (with docs and tests). I'd like to get it
>> in for this beta, since it does involved changed behavior, no matter how
>> small ('1e+100' become
From: "Eric Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have this ready for checkin (with docs and tests). I'd like to get it
in for this beta, since it does involved changed behavior, no matter how
small ('1e+100' becomes '1E+100' with '%F'). But it relies on the
platform's vsnprintf to do the right thing wi
Eric Smith wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
It shares code with %-formatting. Change that, too? I couldn't find
any
occurrences of %F in the stdlib. Not that that's the entire
universe, of
course.
The change is slightly less elegant if I don't change %-formatting, but
still doable, especial
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Dickinson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Eric Smith
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's no exponent until the number gets large. I haven't looked up how
>>> big the number has to get. On my Mac,
Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's no exponent until the number gets large. I haven't looked up how
big the number has to get. On my Mac, it's somewhere between 1e50 and 1e60.
I think it's around 1e50, courtesy of the rather o
Guido van Rossum wrote:
It shares code with %-formatting. Change that, too? I couldn't find any
occurrences of %F in the stdlib. Not that that's the entire universe, of
course.
The change is slightly less elegant if I don't change %-formatting, but
still doable, especially if the betas don't
[Guido]
> My best guess as to why 'F' is the same as 'f' is that somebody
> (could've been me :-) thought, like several others in this thread,
> that %f never prints an exponent. I agree that making it emit an 'E'
> when an exponent is used is the right thing to do. Do it now!
The C standard doesn
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Eric Smith
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know why 'F' is the same as 'f'? Wouldn't it make more sense
>>> to
>>> either drop it, or make it c
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know why 'F' is the same as 'f'? Wouldn't it make more sense to
either drop it, or make it convert the exponent to upper case (like 'E' and
'G')? Compatibility with %-formatting is the on
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know why 'F' is the same as 'f'? Wouldn't it make more sense to
> either drop it, or make it convert the exponent to upper case (like 'E' and
> 'G')? Compatibility with %-formatting is the only reason I can think
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no exponent until the number gets large. I haven't looked up how
> big the number has to get. On my Mac, it's somewhere between 1e50 and 1e60.
I think it's around 1e50, courtesy of the rather oddly-phrased line in
u
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no exponent for small-magnitude numbers, but still an exponent
> for large-magnitude numbers:
>
'%f' % (10**100)
> '1e+100'
So there is! Thanks for the correction.
Mark
___
Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know why 'F' is the same as 'f'? Wouldn't it make more sense to
either drop it, or make it convert the exponent to upper case
What exponent? Isn't the point of 'f' formatting that there i
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Eric Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Does anyone know why 'F' is the same as 'f'? Wouldn't it make more sense to
>> either drop it, or make it convert the exponent to upper case
>
>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Eric Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know why 'F' is the same as 'f'? Wouldn't it make more sense to
> either drop it, or make it convert the exponent to upper case
What exponent? Isn't the point of 'f' formatting that there is no exponent?
In C,
Does anyone know why 'F' is the same as 'f'? Wouldn't it make more
sense to either drop it, or make it convert the exponent to upper case
(like 'E' and 'G')? Compatibility with %-formatting is the only reason
I can think of to keep up, but I get the sense we've given up on an
automatic conver
18 matches
Mail list logo
