[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Jan 2017 10:37:25 +0200 |
> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@live.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:05:28 -0500
>
> There seems to be a few issues in the docstring of `format':
>
> > %g means print a number in exponential notation
> > or decimal-point notation, whichever uses fewer characters.
>
> This seems wrong:
>
> (format "%g" 3.0) ⇒ "3", but
> (format "%f" 3.0) ⇒ "3.000000", and
> (format "%e" 3.0) ⇒ "3.000000e+00", so %g is neither %f nor %e.
Fixed.
> > The # flag means to use an alternate display form [...]
> > for %e, %f, and %g, it causes a decimal point to be included even if
> > the precision is zero.
>
> This seems incomplete:
>
> (format "%#.5g" 3) ⇒ "3.0000", while
> (format "%.5g" 3) ⇒ "3", so # doesn't just cause changes when the precision
> is 0.
I don't understand what you are trying to say (nor the significance of
the '.' flag in the example). '#' forces %g to leave the trailing
zeros after the decimal, so I added that -- is that what you wanted to
say?
> > For %e, %f, and %g sequences, the number after the "." in the
> > precision specifier says how many decimal places to show
>
> This seems wrong, too:
>
> (format "%.5g" 3.0) ⇒ "3", not "3.00000"
> (format "%.5g" 3.1) ⇒ "3.1", not "3.10000"
Fixed.
> Similar problems seem to exist in the actual documentation.
If you mean the ELisp manual, I fixed that as well.
> On a related note, is there a way to get a shortest representation of a
> number? Something like %g, but without exponents.
Sorry, I don't understand the question. How can you represent an
arbitrary number without exponents at all, except by %f?
Anyway, thanks; I'm marking this bug done.
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2017/01/27
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2017/01/28
- bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/28