Le 13/09/2019 à 14:22, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :
However, as I already said it elsewhere, some glitches such as the
following one do occur (see the display of whole x)
--> x=1:0.1:2
x =
1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7000000 1.8 1.9 2.
I agree with Christophe. This output is OK for me. Aestheticism must be
encouraged provided that it does not truncate or downgrade the information.
About padding every number: Not OK. This would kill one of the assets of
the "v" format: its compacity.
About the fact that 1.7 can't be exactly encoded: It is very surprising
for a so limited decimal number. But OK. I am also quite surprised that,
in this series, only 1.7 can't be exactly encoded.
So, the discussion holds on the criterion according to which trailing
zeros must be displayed or not.
1. I am wondering about the following, clearly without definitive
opinion. Just a thought:
After format(10), 1.7000000 is displayed if the NEXT figure is not
0, and 1.7 is displayed otherwise.
In other words, this would no longer refer to %eps but to the
format's length.
The issue with this proposal is that we don't have the current
format in mind. If all numbers are displayed in a compact form, we
don't see the display accuracy..
The choice to refer either to %eps or to format() could be proposed
through the preferences.
2. Instead, the discussion could also be about the IEEE rounding mode.
In some occasion, the IEEE rounding mode below %eps has visible
effects on results (there is something about this in Bugzilla on
mailing lists...). Now, i guess that testing with a hardcoded
equivalent of nearfloat() would be too time-consuming.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
