STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment:
PR 17937 is ready to be reviewed. The tests passed on the regular CIs and buildbots: good. > That last assumes you want -0 and +0 to act differently It is the case: I wrote an unit test checking exactly that, and it works as expected on all platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux, Intel, PPC, etc.). > `nextafter()` is too widely implemented to fight against, despite the sucky > name ;-) nexttoward name is less ambiguous, but as you all said: "nextafter" name is way more popular. Honestly, it's not that hard to infer that the function can go "up" or "down" because it has a second parameter. If it's not obvious enough, maybe we can enhance the documentation. -- About Wikipedia, the following articles are interesting for the ones like me who don't fully understand IEEE 754, rounding mode, etc. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_in_the_last_place * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_epsilon * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754 ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39288> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
