On 29 September 2012 07:50, Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney at gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 September 2012 06:51, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Wow! I had no idea cdecimal was that close in speed to float. That's >> seriously impressive. >> > > If those numbers are similar in other benchmarks, would it be accurate > and/or reasonable to include a statement along the lines of: > > "comparable to float performance - usually no more than 3x for > calculations within the range of numbers covered by float" > > or is there not enough evidence to conclude that? > > Substitute suitable factor for 3x. > > Obviously > And I meant to say congratulations - that's a really impressive result. Oh-oh. The PSU (which does not exist) has found me. I must hi Tim Delaney -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120929/79233f1c/attachment-0001.html>
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