[Raymond Hettinger]
> ...
> The asymmetric handling of denormals by the atof() and ftoa() functions is
> why you see a difference. A consequence of that asymmetry is the breakdown
> of the expected eval(repr(f))==f invariant:
Just noting that such behavior is a violation of the 754 standard for
s
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:08:25 -0500, "Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[Smith]
>>I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying to
>>find the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the '0.0'
>>is showing up for one case below but not for the
[Smith]
>I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying to
>find the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the '0.0'
>is showing up for one case below but not for the other? According to my
>tests, the smallest representable float on my machine is much sm
"Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying
> to find the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the
> '0.0' is showing up for one case below but not for the other? According
> to my tests, the smallest representabl
