Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying
to find the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the
'0.0' is showing up for one case below but not for the other? According
to my tests, the smallest representable float
[Smith]
I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying to
find the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the '0.0'
is showing up for one case below but not for the other? According to my
tests, the smallest representable float on my machine is much
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:08:25 -0500, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Smith]
I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying to
find the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the '0.0'
is showing up for one case below but not for the other?
[Raymond Hettinger]
...
The asymmetric handling of denormals by the atof() and ftoa() functions is
why you see a difference. A consequence of that asymmetry is the breakdown
of the expected eval(repr(f))==f invariant:
Just noting that such behavior is a violation of the 754 standard for
I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying to find
the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the '0.0' is
showing up for one case below but not for the other? According to my tests, the
smallest representable float on my machine is much smaller than
