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 4.58919e-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?
History
Date User Action Args
2009-03-29 15:07:03mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, lemburg, tim.peters, nnorwitz, georg.brandl
2009-03-29 15:07:02mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <1238339222.72.0.555340019744.issue532631@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-03-29 15:07:01mark.dickinsonlinkissue532631 messages
2009-03-29 15:07:00mark.dickinsoncreate