Message359800
PR 17937 is ready to be reviewed. The tests passed on the regular CIs and buildbots: good.
> That last assumes you want -0 and +0 to act differently
It is the case: I wrote an unit test checking exactly that, and it works as expected on all platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux, Intel, PPC, etc.).
> `nextafter()` is too widely implemented to fight against, despite the sucky name ;-)
nexttoward name is less ambiguous, but as you all said: "nextafter" name is way more popular. Honestly, it's not that hard to infer that the function can go "up" or "down" because it has a second parameter. If it's not obvious enough, maybe we can enhance the documentation.
--
About Wikipedia, the following articles are interesting for the ones like me who don't fully understand IEEE 754, rounding mode, etc.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_in_the_last_place
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_epsilon
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754 |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-01-11 15:35:26 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, lemburg, tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, stutzbach, steven.daprano |
2020-01-11 15:35:26 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1578756926.28.0.974014774107.issue39288@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-01-11 15:35:26 | vstinner | link | issue39288 messages |
2020-01-11 15:35:25 | vstinner | create | |
|