Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: > The only way to do that now is t=frexp(x) and y=ldexp(t[0],t[1]+2).
What's wrong with the more direct ldexp(x, 2)? N.B. There *are* edge cases where Martin's suggested alternative won't work. E.g., to compute 1e-300 * 2**1500: >>> ldexp(1e-300, 1500) 3.507466211043404e+151 But: >>> 1e-300 * (1 << 1500) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> OverflowError: long int too large to convert to float I'm -1 on the proposal: I recognise the need for these operations, but I think 'ldexp(x, n)' gives an adequate solution. Fitting the functionality to the << and >> operators is awkward, because that's not what those operators do for integers (>> produces the *floor* of the quotient, and << doesn't currently accept negative arguments on the right, so there's no neat way for integers to divide by a power of 2). See also the rejected issue 1205239. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11967> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
