Author eric.smith
Recipients eric.smith, mark.dickinson
Date 2009-05-04.20:20:55
SpamBayes Score 8.10364e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <49FF4EA2.1010502@trueblade.com>
In-reply-to <1241465416.76.0.973930264117.issue5920@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
> Yes, that makes some sense.  How would you handle 
> '{:.10}'.format(10/3.), though?  We could either change 's' to allow a 
> precision, or use 's' when there's no precision specified and 'g' (with 
> the ADD_DOT_0 flag) otherwise.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I'm not a big fan of switching 
between 's' and 'g' depending on whether a precision is specified.

>> Or, also switch float_str to use 'g' with a precision of
>> PyFloat_STR_PRECISION, and get rid of 's' altogether.
> 
> This sounds good to me.  It does feel as though there's unnecessary
> duplication with the current setup.

A major point of 's' was to not specify the precision, so I'd prefer to 
remove 's' and use 'g' with a specified precision.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-05-04 20:20:57eric.smithsetrecipients: + eric.smith, mark.dickinson
2009-05-04 20:20:55eric.smithlinkissue5920 messages
2009-05-04 20:20:55eric.smithcreate