x = (1.234567890125, 1.2345678901255)
print x
print x[0], x[1]
(1.234567890124, 1.2345678901254999)
1.23456789012 1.23456789013
Is there a rational reason, or is that simply an artifact of the way
that the code has evolved? It is clearly not a bug :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
--
Nick Maclaren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
x = (1.234567890125, 1.2345678901255)
print x
print x[0], x[1]
(1.234567890124, 1.2345678901254999)
1.23456789012 1.23456789013
Is there a rational reason, or is that simply an artifact of the way
that the code
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Richard Brodie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| When you do print on a tuple it doesn't recursively
| call str(), so you get the repr representations.
Ah! That explains it. I would call that reason intermediate
between rational and an artifact of the way the code
Nick Maclaren wrote:
Ah! That explains it. I would call that reason intermediate
between rational and an artifact of the way the code has evolved!
Which code has evolved? Those precision problems are inherent
problems of the way floats are stored in memory.
Regards,
Björn
--
BOFH excuse
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bjoern Schliessmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| Ah! That explains it. I would call that reason intermediate
| between rational and an artifact of the way the code has evolved!
|
| Which code has evolved? Those precision problems are
Nick Maclaren wrote:
The use of different precisions for the two cases is not, however,
and it is that I was and am referring to.
that's by design, of course. maybe you should look repr up in the
documentation ?
/F
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| The use of different precisions for the two cases is not, however,
| and it is that I was and am referring to.
|
| that's by design, of course. maybe you should look repr up in the
|
Nick Maclaren wrote:
I think that you should.
Big words.
Where does it say that tuple's __str__ is the same as its
__repr__?
Where does it say that a tuple's __str__ does not call its contents'
__repr__?
The obvious interpretation of the documentation is that a sequence
type's __str__
Nick Maclaren wrote:
The use of different precisions for the two cases is not, however,
and it is that I was and am referring to.
You mistake precision with display.
Regards,
Björn
--
BOFH excuse #12:
dry joints on cable plug
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Nick Maclaren wrote:
I think that you should. Where does it say that tuple's __str__ is
the same as its __repr__?
The obvious interpretation of the documentation is that a sequence
type's __str__ would call __str__ on each sub-object, and its __repr__
would call __repr__.
How would you
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ziga Seilnacht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| I think that you should. Where does it say that tuple's __str__ is
| the same as its __repr__?
|
| The obvious interpretation of the documentation is that a sequence
| type's __str__ would call __str__ on each
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bjoern Schliessmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| The use of different precisions for the two cases is not, however,
| and it is that I was and am referring to.
|
| You mistake precision with display.
Not at all. Precision has been used to indicate the number
Nick Maclaren wrote:
Well, it's not felt necessary to distinguish those at top level, so
why should it be when they are in a sequence?
Well, this probably wasn't the best example, see the links below
for a better one.
But this whole thing is getting ridiculous. The current implementation
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ziga Seilnacht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| There was a recent bug report identical to your complaints, which
| was closed as invalid. The rationale for closing it was that things
| like:
|
| print (a, bc, de f,, gh), i)
|
| would be extremely confusing if the
Nick Maclaren wrote:
Not at all. Precision has been used to indicate the number of
digits after the decimal point for at least 60 years,
Not only, remember: Computer memories can't think in powers of ten.
probably 100; in 40 years of IT and using dozens of programming
languages, I have
15 matches
Mail list logo
