GNU bug report logs - #25557
Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately

Previous Next

Full log

Message #34 received at 25557 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
Cc: 25557 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 21:31:52 +0200

> Cc: 25557 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:14:03 -0500
> 
> >> I'm trying to get the shortest representation of a decimal number, rounded to .01, not using scientific/exponential notation.  I'm using values computed in ELisp to produce CSS style sheets, which until recently didn't allow for exponential notation.  I'd like these stylesheets to be readable, so 100% is better 100.00%, and 3.35em is better than 3.35004em. If my code is fed a value of 5000px, I don't want it converted to 5e+3px, because many browsers don't know how to parse that.
> > 
> > Then I think you want to use %d for integral values and %.2f for the
> > rest.
> 
> No, that still won't do: it wouldn't format 3.0 as "3", if I understand correctly.

??? (format "%d" 3.0) => "3"

Or maybe you didn't think 3.0 was an "integral value" by my
definition?  I meant by that any value VAL which yields zero when
passed through (mod VAL 1.0).

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.