RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jan 18 10:28:34 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059876.html

Steve Holden wrote:
[...]
> Personally I wouldn't even be interested in seeing 
> 1.3407807929942597e+154 written in fixed point form *in decimal*, let 
> alone in binary where the representation, though unambiguous, would have 
> over 500 bits, most of them zeros.
> 
Well, shot myself in the foot there of course, since the number I meant 
was actually 2.0 ** 512 (or 
13407807929942597099574024998205846127479365820592393377723561443721764030073546
976801874298166903427690031858186486050853753882811946569946433649006084096.0) 
  rather than the decimal approximation above. But I'm sure you get the 
point that fixed-point representations aren't always appropriate.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden       +44 150 684 7255  +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC                     www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006                  www.python.org/pycon/

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059876.html below:

[Python-Dev] str with base