This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author steven.daprano
Recipients MrBlueSkies, eric.smith, mark.dickinson, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano
Date 2021-04-21.10:39:57
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1619001597.77.0.219476994097.issue43903@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
I concur with Eric that this should be closed.

They're not "incorrect results", they are correct results, or at least *better* results. We did not invent the so-called Banker's Rounding technique, it has been the standard used by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) since 1940, and was in common use even before that.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Rounding#History

(Despite the name, there's very little evidence that it has been used by bankers.)

I am sorry that you expected different results and a worse rounding technique. The method of rounding taught in high schools is worse because it leads to bias. I'm sorry that you have been taught a poor rounding technique, but not everyone expects the same results you do.

See previous issue #41598 and likely others.
History
Date User Action Args
2021-04-21 10:39:57steven.dapranosetrecipients: + steven.daprano, mark.dickinson, eric.smith, serhiy.storchaka, MrBlueSkies
2021-04-21 10:39:57steven.dapranosetmessageid: <1619001597.77.0.219476994097.issue43903@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-04-21 10:39:57steven.dapranolinkissue43903 messages
2021-04-21 10:39:57steven.dapranocreate