[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately

From: Clément Pit--Claudel
Subject: bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 15:06:22 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0

On 2017-01-28 14:31, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:14:03 -0500
>>>> I'm trying to get the shortest representation of a decimal number, rounded 
>>>> to .01, not using scientific/exponential notation.  I'm using values 
>>>> computed in ELisp to produce CSS style sheets, which until recently didn't 
>>>> allow for exponential notation.  I'd like these stylesheets to be 
>>>> readable, so 100% is better 100.00%, and 3.35em is better than 3.35004em. 
>>>> If my code is fed a value of 5000px, I don't want it converted to 5e+3px, 
>>>> because many browsers don't know how to parse that.
>>> Then I think you want to use %d for integral values and %.2f for the
>>> rest.
>> No, that still won't do: it wouldn't format 3.0 as "3", if I understand 
>> correctly.
> ??? (format "%d" 3.0) => "3"
> Or maybe you didn't think 3.0 was an "integral value" by my
> definition?  I meant by that any value VAL which yields zero when
> passed through (mod VAL 1.0).

Yup, I misunderstood your definition of integral value.  But that still doesn't 
cover formatting e.g. 3.3 as "3.3" instead of "3.30", right?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]