On Tue, Mar 30, 2004, Edward Loper wrote: > > But I'm not particularly happy about the fact that you have to be an > expert to understand the intricacies of basic arithmetic with floats > (not that I have a way to fix it). On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Aahz wrote: > > >>> 1.1 > 1.1000000000000001 > > Just a fact of life. :-/ I regret that this "feature" was ever introduced or "fixed" or what have you. Things were much better when repr(1.1) was "1.1" a few versions ago. This inconsistency is strange and surprising to every Python learner and I still believe there is no good reason for it. The motivation, as i remember it, was to make repr(x) produce a cross-platform representation of x. But no one uses repr() expecting bit-for-bit identity across platforms. repr() can't even represent most objects; if you want to transfer things between platforms, you would use pickle. If typing in "1.1" produces x, then "1.1" is a perfectly accurate representation of x on the current platform. And that is sufficient. Showing "1.1000000000000001" is a clear case of confusing lots of people in exchange for an obscure benefit to very few. If i could vote for just one thing to roll back about Python, this would be it. -- ?!ng
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4