Noam Raphael added the comment: About the educational problem. If someone is puzzled by "1.1*3 != 3.3", you could always use '%50f' % 1.1 instead of repr(1.1). I don't think that trying to teach people that floating points don't always do what they expect them to do is a good reason to print uninteresting and visually distracting digits when you don't have to.
About the compatibility problem: I don't see why it should matter to the NumPy people if the repr() of some floats is made shorter. Anyway, we can ask them, using a PEP or just the mailing list. About the benefit: If I have data which contains floats, I'm usually interested about their (physical) value, not about their last bits. That's why str(f) does what it does. I like repr(x) to be one-to-one, as I explained in the previous message, but if it can be made more readable, why not make it so? __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1580> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
