Subject: bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:23:55 +0200

> Cc: [email-masked]
> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 10:04:33 -0500
> 
> >> On a related note, is there a way to get a shortest representation of a number? Something like %g, but without exponents.
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't understand the question.  How can you represent an
> > arbitrary number without exponents at all, except by %f?
> 
> I'd like something like this (with a hypothetical %q):
> 
>   (format "%.3q" 3) ⇒ "3"
>   (format "%.3q" 3.00) ⇒ "3"
>   (format "%.3q" 3.30) ⇒ "3.3"
>   (format "%.3q" 3.05) ⇒ "3.05"
>   (format "%.3q" 3.352) ⇒ "3.35"
>   (format "%.3q" 3100000) ⇒ "3100000"
> 
> This is in fact just the same as 'g', except for the last entry (%g produces "3.1e+06"). Is this achievable?

Yes, if you use "%.7g".  In general, use "%.Ng" if you want up to N
digits in the printed representation.

Does that answer your question?