[issue9338] argparse optionals with nargs='?', '*' or '+' can't be followed by positionals

2018-03-21 Thread TD22057
TD22057 <ted.dr...@gmail.com> added the comment: Is there any chance this will ever get fixed? Patches have been available for 5 years with no progress. -- ___ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.pytho

[issue9338] argparse optionals with nargs='?', '*' or '+' can't be followed by positionals

2013-07-17 Thread TD22057
Changes by TD22057 ted.dr...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +TD22057 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9338 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue4114] struct returns incorrect 4 byte float

2008-10-13 Thread TD22057
TD22057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: That's not my code - it's an example ;) My code reads binary data from a hardware system that is encoding 32 bit floats. The numbers I get back from struct.decode have garbage appended on the end of the floating point numbers beyond the 32 bit range

[issue4114] struct returns incorrect 4 byte float

2008-10-13 Thread TD22057
TD22057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I'm receiving a 32 bit floating point number encoded in binary format. The correct value for that number is 1.8183e-7 which can be expressed in single precision just fine. Given that the number in the binary encoding is 1.8183e-7, I expected to get

[issue4114] struct returns incorrect 4 byte float

2008-10-13 Thread TD22057
TD22057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Martin is correct. I expected (naively) that struct would zero pad the digits beyond the significant digits of a float. As to whether it's exact or not, see my first message: v=1.8183e-7 v 1.81830001e-07 Since 32 bit floats only have ~7