[issue7469] Design and History FAQ entry on Floating Point does not mention short repr.

Mark Dickinson added the comment: Agreed; I think this did all get updated at one point or another. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Pyth

[issue7469] Design and History FAQ entry on Floating Point does not mention short repr.

R. David Murray added the comment: I've reviewed these docs again, and I don't see anything left to update (everything in the current 2.7 tutorial appears to be accurate). I also did a grep on the FAQs, and don't see any prints that are statements, so those must have gotten fixed as part of o

[issue7469] Design and History FAQ entry on Floating Point does not mention short repr.

R. David Murray added the comment: No, you are right, there's nothing actually inaccurate. It might be good for it to say, about repr, that it prints the "minimum number of digits necessary", which is what is different from the old behavior. But I agree that it doesn't *have* to change. -

[issue7469] Design and History FAQ entry on Floating Point does not mention short repr.

Mark Dickinson added the comment: Is there anything actually *wrong* with that FAQ section? I'm not sure how mentioning short float repr would address any particular FAQ. Unless that FAQ is "why do 2.6 and 2.7 give different results?". I agree that the tutorial section for trunk needs updat

[issue7469] Design and History FAQ entry on Floating Point does not mention short repr.

New submission from R. David Murray : See http://docs.python.org/dev/faq/design.html#why-are-floating-point-calculations-so-inaccurate. The 3.1 version is the same, so it also needs to be updated. The entry links to the tutorial, which has the correct information for 3.1/3.2, but not for trunk.