Message69429
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | alexandre.vassalotti, amaury.forgeotdarc, christian.heimes, gvanrossum, mark.dickinson, nascheme, noam, rhettinger, skip.montanaro, tim.peters |
| Date | 2008-07-08.13:34:35 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.00046846125 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1215524077.61.0.934984393771.issue1580@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
For what it's worth, I'm -0.1 (or should that be -0.10000000000000001?) on this change. It seems better to leave the problems caused by binary floating-point out in the open than try to partially hide them, and the proposed change just seems a little bit too 'magic'. The inconsistency in the following current behaviour *does* irk me slightly (but only slightly): >>> 0.13 0.13 >>> 0.14 0.14000000000000001 But practical issues aside, my preference would be to go to the other extreme: fix this inconsistency by changing the first output to 0.13000000000000000 rather than changing the second output to 0.14. That is, have repr(float) *always* output 17 digits, possibly except when that float is *exactly* representable in 16 or fewer decimal digits (e.g. 3.5, 0.125, ...). All the zeros act as a subtle reminder that the stored value is not exactly 0.13. But I suspect this, too, isn't very practical. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-07-08 13:34:38 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.000468461 -> 0.00046846125 recipients: + mark.dickinson, gvanrossum, tim.peters, skip.montanaro, nascheme, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, christian.heimes, alexandre.vassalotti, noam |
| 2008-07-08 13:34:37 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.000468461 -> 0.000468461 messageid: <1215524077.61.0.934984393771.issue1580@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-07-08 13:34:36 | mark.dickinson | link | issue1580 messages |
| 2008-07-08 13:34:35 | mark.dickinson | create | |