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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25557 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#25557: Documentation of format doesn't describe "g" accurately
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 15:06:22 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2017-01-28 14:31, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 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).

Yup, I misunderstood your definition of integral value.  But that still doesn't cover formatting e.g. 3.3 as "3.3" instead of "3.30", right?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Previous Next

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