Message 84410 - Python tracker

➜

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	mark.dickinson
Recipients	georg.brandl, lemburg, mark.dickinson, nnorwitz, tim.peters
Date	2009-03-29.15:07:00
SpamBayes Score	4.5891888e-05
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1238339222.72.0.555340019744.issue532631@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
I've replaced the fabs(x) / 1e25 >= 1e25 test with fabs(x) >= 1e50 in r70678. On IEEE 754 systems, assuming round-to-nearest, these two tests have identical meaning. I've also fixed the docs, replacing 1e25 by 1e50. Is there a good reason for '%.100f'% 1e49 to raise OverflowError (rather than providing the requested 100 places after the decimal point), other than implementation convenience?

I've replaced the fabs(x) / 1e25 >= 1e25 test with fabs(x) >= 1e50 in 
r70678.  On IEEE 754 systems, assuming round-to-nearest, these two tests 
have identical meaning.

I've also fixed the docs, replacing 1e25 by 1e50.

Is there a good reason for

'%.100f'% 1e49

to raise OverflowError (rather than providing the requested 100 places 
after the decimal point), other than implementation convenience?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2009-03-29 15:07:03	mark.dickinson	set	recipients: + mark.dickinson, lemburg, tim.peters, nnorwitz, georg.brandl
2009-03-29 15:07:02	mark.dickinson	set	messageid: <1238339222.72.0.555340019744.issue532631@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-03-29 15:07:01	mark.dickinson	link	issue532631 messages
2009-03-29 15:07:00	mark.dickinson	create