[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
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 smaller than 1
