Ok, I had to make a huge effort to accept this, but it's more clear now. One last question: Why RDF does not incorporate this feature? because it comes from the GSL library, that is an independent project? or because its precision is known a priori, like the float type in Python?
On Monday, October 6, 2014 3:39:32 PM UTC-3, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2014-10-06 18:03, João Alberto wrote: > > Is this a correct behavior of Sage? > It's a feature, not a bug. The reason is that the number of digits gives > an idea about the precision of the number. Compare > > sage: RealField(20)(1) > 1.0000 > sage: RealField(100)(1) > 1.0000000000000000000000000000 > > If both these would be printed as "1.0", you would lose this information > about the precision. > > Python has a fixed precision of 53 bits and prints a minimal number of > digits. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
