Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:46:26 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> How about “mantissa length”, then. That sufficiently neutral for you? >> >>

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:46:26 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> How about “mantissa length”, then. That sufficiently neutral for you? > > That makes even less sense for integers. Perhaps you would prefer the more gender-neutral

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Steven D'Aprano writes: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:28 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > >> There's an old story they tell in my family about a child who begs for >> bread from a house. The lady of the house asks if they want a one-hand >> slice (yhe käe leipä) or a two-hand slice (kahe käe leipä), and

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:28 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > There's an old story they tell in my family about a child who begs for > bread from a house. The lady of the house asks if they want a one-hand > slice (yhe käe leipä) or a two-hand slice (kahe käe leipä), and when the > poor hungry child

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:13 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > [in response to my attempt to understand "steep learning curve"] > >> "Learning curve" or "experience curve" is not just an metaphor, it is >> an actual technical term. See the Wikipedia article: >> >>

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Op 15-07-16 om 15:38 schreef Jussi Piitulainen: > Antoon Pardon writes: > >> No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a >> conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get >> some mastery and how we could present progress in a graph, virtually >>

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Op 15-07-16 om 15:39 schreef Random832: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016, at 07:44, Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a >> conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get >> some mastery and how we could present progress in a

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Antoon Pardon writes: > No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a > conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get > some mastery and how we could present progress in a graph, virtually > everyone uses the conventional axes layout. This talk about

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016, at 07:44, Antoon Pardon wrote: > No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a > conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get > some mastery and how we could present progress in a graph, virtually > everyone uses the

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Antoon Pardon writes: > Op 15-07-16 om 10:40 schreef Jussi Piitulainen: >> Antoon Pardon writes: >> >>> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for language questions. >>> But educated about what exactly? >>> >>> Each

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Steven D'Aprano writes: [in response to my attempt to understand "steep learning curve"] > "Learning curve" or "experience curve" is not just an metaphor, it is > an actual technical term. See the Wikipedia article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve > > > Now, there are a couple

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Op 15-07-16 om 12:56 schreef Steven D'Aprano: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:40 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > >> Antoon Pardon writes: >> >>> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for language questions. >>> But educated

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Op 15-07-16 om 10:40 schreef Jussi Piitulainen: > Antoon Pardon writes: > >> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: >>> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for >>> language questions. >> But educated about what exactly? >> >> Each time someone talks about "a

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:40 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > Antoon Pardon writes: > >> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: >>> >>> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for >>> language questions. >> >> But educated about what exactly? >> >> Each time someone

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Op 15-07-16 om 11:20 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: > Antoon Pardon : > >> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: >>> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for >>> language questions. >> But educated about what exactly? > In this case we are

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Antoon Pardon : > Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: >> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for >> language questions. > > But educated about what exactly? In this case we are talking about those people who actively talk about

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Antoon Pardon writes: > Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: >> >> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for >> language questions. > > But educated about what exactly? > > Each time someone talks about "a steep learning curve" in order to > indicate something

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: > Ian Kelly : > >> On Jul 14, 2016 11:37 AM, "Marko Rauhamaa" wrote: >>> Where do you get the idea that the common usage is "wrong?" What do >>> you use as a standard? >> Is it "wrong" to consider some usages

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Ian Kelly : > On Jul 14, 2016 11:37 AM, "Marko Rauhamaa" wrote: >> Where do you get the idea that the common usage is "wrong?" What do >> you use as a standard? > > Is it "wrong" to consider some usages "wrong"? By what standard? > > I'm not interested in

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:17:27 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > Is it "wrong" to consider some usages "wrong"? By what standard? Do you say “head over heels” or “heels over head”? “Burgle” or “burglari{s,z}e”? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Jul 14, 2016 11:37 AM, "Marko Rauhamaa" wrote: > > Ian Kelly : > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >>In American English, the original word for [significand] seems to > >>have been mantissa (Burks[1]

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:11:46 AM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > Just because it's already common to use the wrong term doesn't mean > the usage should be promulgated further. Yes of course. The only logically-acceptable meaning of “mantissa” is “female mantis”, and any other usage is to be the

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Ian Kelly : > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >>In American English, the original word for [significand] seems to >>have been mantissa (Burks[1] et al.), and this usage remains >>common in computing and among computer

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Ian Kelly : > >> The significand of -3.14159 is the sequence of digits 314159. The >> mantissa of -3.14159 is the number 0.85841. > > Fight it all you want. However: > >In American English, the

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Ian Kelly : > The significand of -3.14159 is the sequence of digits 314159. The > mantissa of -3.14159 is the number 0.85841. Fight it all you want. However: In American English, the original word for [significand] seems to have been mantissa (Burks[1] et al.), and

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On 2016-07-14 15:30, Ian Kelly wrote: On Jul 14, 2016 1:52 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote: On Thursday 14 July 2016 15:18, Ian Kelly wrote: Side note, neither do floating point numbers, really; what is often called the mantissa is more properly known as

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Jul 14, 2016 1:52 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote: > > On Thursday 14 July 2016 15:18, Ian Kelly wrote: > > > Side note, neither do floating point numbers, really; what is often > > called the mantissa is more properly known as the significand. But > >

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Thursday 14 July 2016 15:18, Ian Kelly wrote: > Side note, neither do floating point numbers, really; what is often > called the mantissa is more properly known as the significand. But > integers don't have that either. Er, then what's a mantissa if it's not what people call a float's

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:46:26 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >>> ... don't

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:46:26 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> >>> ... don't call it "precision". >> >> How about “mantissa length”, then. That sufficiently neutral for

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On 2016-07-14 01:45, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: ... don't call it "precision". How about “mantissa length”, then. That sufficiently neutral for you? That

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > >> ... don't call it "precision". > > How about “mantissa length”, then. That sufficiently neutral for you? That makes even less sense for

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > ... don't call it "precision". How about “mantissa length”, then. That sufficiently neutral for you? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > Python 3.4.3 help text for divmod says it returns ((x-x%y)/y, x%y) but > that's not quite correct, because type. Probably // is intended. Starting with 3.5, it says it returns the tuple (x//y, x%y).

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Chris Angelico writes: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >>> Or just use divmod: >>> >> "%d.%02d" % divmod(1<<200, 100) >>> '16069380442589902755419620923411626025222029937827928353013.76' >> >> I'm not quite ready to blame floating point for this difference yet: >>

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Op 13-07-16 om 10:49 schreef Steven D'Aprano: > On Wednesday 13 July 2016 17:05, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> >>> I never claimed it's not useful. I don't really have a problem with >>> format supporting it, either. But if it does,

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >> Or just use divmod: >> > "%d.%02d" % divmod(1<<200, 100) >> '16069380442589902755419620923411626025222029937827928353013.76' > > I'm not quite ready to blame floating point for this difference yet: >

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Chris Angelico writes: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber > wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:21:17 -0600, Ian Kelly >> declaimed the following: >> >>> What if I've been doing my math with fixed-point integers (because I >>> don't

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:21:17 -0600, Ian Kelly > declaimed the following: > >> What if I've been doing my math with fixed-point integers (because I >> don't know about or just don't like decimals), and now I want to >> format them for output? Is

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:21:17 -0600, Ian Kelly > declaimed the following: > >>What if I've been doing my math with fixed-point integers (because I >>don't know about or just don't like

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Wednesday 13 July 2016 17:05, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > >> I never claimed it's not useful. I don't really have a problem with >> format supporting it, either. But if it does, then don't call it >> "precision". > > Like it or

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > I never claimed it's not useful. I don't really have a problem with > format supporting it, either. But if it does, then don't call it > "precision". Like it or not, that is the accepted term, as used in the printf(3) man page. Feel

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Ian Kelly : > I don't know of anybody who would consider that good design, and the > "precision" field in printf-style formatting isn't good design either. > But it has history behind it, so does that put it in the right? Apparently, the original intent for the field was

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > For integers, printf and % interpret the so-called "precision" field of the > format string not as a measurement precision (number of decimal places), > but as the number of digits to use (which is different from the

Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:51 am, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> say, 2,147 >> millimeters, with a precision of four significant digits > > > How do you represent 1 mm to a precision of four significant digits, in such > a way

Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:51 am, Chris Angelico wrote: > say, 2,147 > millimeters, with a precision of four significant digits How do you represent 1 mm to a precision of four significant digits, in such a way that it is distinguished from 1 mm to one significant digit, and 1 mm to a precision of

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 04:38 am, Ian Kelly wrote: > In what way do the leading zeroes in "00123" add to the precision of > the number? 00123 is the same quantity as 123 and represents no more > precise a measurement. You guys... next you're going to tell me that 1.23 and 1.2300 are the same

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Ethan Furman wrote: >> >> I will readily admit to not having a maths degree, and so of course to me >> saying the integer 123 has a precision of 5, 10, or 99 digits seems like >> hogwash to me. > > > Seems to me

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On 07/11/2016 04:47 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote: Ethan Furman wrote: I will readily admit to not having a maths degree, and so of course to me saying the integer 123 has a precision of 5, 10, or 99 digits seems like hogwash to me. Seems to me insisting that the number after the dot be called

Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Jan Coombs wrote: > Thees all look good, but you may get into trouble if you trust a > PC with them! > > If the language/PC uses floating point representation then it > will assign a fixed number of bits for the fractional part,

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Ethan Furman wrote: I will readily admit to not having a maths degree, and so of course to me saying the integer 123 has a precision of 5, 10, or 99 digits seems like hogwash to me. Seems to me insisting that the number after the dot be called "precision" in all cases is imposing a foolish

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

I seem to remember Guido stating once that a design principle of the new formatting system was for the part after the colon to be the same as what you would put in an equivalent %-format, to make it easy for people to switch between them. If that principle still stands, then this would seem to

Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:51:23 +1000 Chris Angelico wrote: [snip] > > Yep. Precision is also a property of a measurement, the same > way that a unit is. If I pace out the length of the main > corridor in my house, I might come up with a result of thirty > meters. The number is

Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Precision is not a property of the number. It is a property of the > *representation* of that number. > > The representation “1×10²” has a precision of one digit. > The representation “100” has a precision of three

What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats)

Ethan Furman writes: > I will readily admit to not having a maths degree, and so of course to > me saying the integer 123 has a precision of 5, 10, or 99 digits seems > like hogwash to me. Precision is not a property of the number. It is a property of the *representation* of

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On 7/11/2016 3:27 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: In any case, I think it an improvement to say that '0x00123' has a field width of 7 rather than a 'precision' of 5. '{:#07x}'.format(0x123) # specifiy field width '0x00123'

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, at 16:06, Michael Torrie wrote: > I'm not sure I've ever seen a negative hex number in the wild. Usually > when I view a number in hex I am wanting the raw representation. -0x123 > with a width of 7 would be 0xFFEDD There's nothing "raw" about python int objects. To get

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On 07/11/2016 01:27 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: >> In any case, I think it an improvement to say that '0x00123' has a field >> width of 7 rather than a 'precision' of 5. >> > '{:#07x}'.format(0x123) # specifiy field width >>

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > In any case, I think it an improvement to say that '0x00123' has a field > width of 7 rather than a 'precision' of 5. > '{:#07x}'.format(0x123) # specifiy field width > '0x00123' "%#0.5x" % 0x123 # specify int

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On 7/11/2016 1:24 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: On 07/11/2016 09:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:04 am, Ian Kelly wrote: Er, what? I count *five* digits in "00123", not three. You seem to be assuming that "precision" can only refer to digits after the decimal place, but

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:04 am, Ian Kelly wrote: >> Your example showed a 3-digit number being formatted with a requested >> precision of 5 digits. The way this was done was by left-padding the >> number with 0s until

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On 07/11/2016 09:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:04 am, Ian Kelly wrote: Er, what? I count *five* digits in "00123", not three. You seem to be assuming that "precision" can only refer to digits after the decimal place, but that's a dubious proposition. I will readily

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:04 am, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro > wrote: >> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 7:22:42 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: In printf-style formats, you

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 7:22:42 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> In printf-style formats, you can specify the number of digits for an >>> integer

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 7:22:42 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> In printf-style formats, you can specify the number of digits for an >> integer separately from the field width. E.g. >> >> >>> "%#0.5x" % 0x123 >> '0x00123' >> >

Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > In printf-style formats, you can specify the number of digits for an integer > separately from the field width. E.g. > > >>> "%#0.5x" % 0x123 > '0x00123' > > but not in new-style formats: > > >>>

Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

In printf-style formats, you can specify the number of digits for an integer separately from the field width. E.g. >>> "%#0.5x" % 0x123 '0x00123' but not in new-style formats: >>> "{:#0.5x}".format(0x123) Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in