On 11/26/2011 03:15 PM, Vladimir Uryvaev wrote: > At Saturday 26 of November 2011 23:49:27 from Lorenzo Marcantonio: >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:30:59PM +0400, Vladimir Uryvaev wrote: >>> May be I'm not human, but for me as being scientist and engineer it sound >>> weird to truncate significant digits. >>> 1, 1.0, 1.00 are different for me, as they carry different precision. So >>> I'm all for %*f and to keep all significant digits, whatever they are, >>> zeroes, or not. >> If we're talking about storage I'd says omitting zero is better. On the >> screen or on a report, you need to show the 'right' amount of zeroes. > In GUI we do not know what precision user mean (or we have to store it), so > it > is no useful information. > > In file precision mean storage precision and is known. Anyway, fixed format > is > preferable in machine read data. Note, if you speak about human readability, > not storage efficiency, such precision would be precious information. If > you're > about efficiency, you would prefer binary file or BASE64 at least. > > Also as I noted above %g may switch to exponent format (AFAIR it is not > specified by standard -- when it happen), which could be undesirable.
Anyone that thinks that 1.000000000 is better than 1 is welcome to submit a patch for consideration. There is no scenario in which %g will produce exponents, given the bounded data that we are throwing at it. The bounded data consists of the 4 billion BIU integers multiplied by a few select BFU scaling factors. One could take my test program and write a for loop, redirect the output to a text file, and grep through it looking for exponents. If I am wrong, I will revisit the %.10g decision. Dick _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
