"Dick Moores" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>Another typical strategy is to use some prescribed special value for
>>the precision parameter to designate the desire for full precision.
>
> Beautiful! Thanks!
It seems I misunderstood your question.
I thought you were referring to the general pr
At 05:10 PM 11/11/2007, Michael H. Goldwasser wrote:
>Dick,
>
>Another typical strategy is to use some prescribed special value for
>the precision parameter to designate the desire for full precision.
>For example, since precisions should presumably be positive, one could
>design this function as
At 05:38 PM 11/11/2007, Kent Johnson wrote:
>Dick Moores wrote:
>
>>def fact(n, precision=15, full=False):
> ...
>
>># 3 (full set to True, forcing precision to be specified--but
>>irrelevant what it is set to)
>> >>> print fact(50, 3, True)
>>304140932017133780436126081660647688443776415689605
At 04:22 PM 11/11/2007, Alan Gauld wrote:
>"Dick Moores" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > And if the function is rewritten as def fact(n, full=False,
> > precision=15)
> > there would be the analogous problem involving full.
> >
> > Is there a way to solve this problem of the unnecessary setting of
Dick Moores wrote:
> def fact(n, precision=15, full=False):
...
> # 3 (full set to True, forcing precision to be specified--but
> irrelevant what it is set to)
> >>> print fact(50, 3, True)
> 30414093201713378043612608166064768844377641568960512
You don't have to specify precisi
"Dick Moores" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> And if the function is rewritten as def fact(n, full=False,
> precision=15)
> there would be the analogous problem involving full.
>
> Is there a way to solve this problem of the unnecessary setting of
> the 2nd argument?
The most common solution I've s
