[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 10:45:09 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1

On 2017-01-28 10:23, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 10:04:33 -0500
>>>> 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?
>> I'd like something like this (with a hypothetical %q):
>>   (format "%.3q" 3) ⇒ "3"
>>   (format "%.3q" 3.00) ⇒ "3"
>>   (format "%.3q" 3.30) ⇒ "3.3"
>>   (format "%.3q" 3.05) ⇒ "3.05"
>>   (format "%.3q" 3.352) ⇒ "3.35"
>>   (format "%.3q" 3100000) ⇒ "3100000"
>> This is in fact just the same as 'g', except for the last entry (%g produces 
>> "3.1e+06"). Is this achievable?
> Yes, if you use "%.7g".  In general, use "%.Ng" if you want up to N
> digits in the printed representation.
> Does that answer your question?

Almost: though this works for the last example, it breaks the one before the 
last (I'm looking for a format specifier that would constrain the number of 
decimals, not the number of digits, so that (format "%.3q" 30.352) would 
produce "30.35" — maybe all these examples should have had %.2q instead of 
%.3q, in fact).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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