On Apr 26, 12:29 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:36:22 -0700, Keith wrote: >>no one talks about 4.7e-5F, as they would rather see 47e-6 >>(micro). Instead of 2.2e-2, engineers need to see 22.0e-3 (milli).
>I'd be cautious about making claims about "no one" Good point, and I don't intend to belittle scientific computing folks for whom traditional floating point representation is expected. Nor am I suggesting that any of the six format specifiers that we already have for scientific notation (e, E, f, F, g, G) be altered in any way. I guess I wasn't clear about the F in the 4.7e-5F in the example. People doing engineering don't use 4.7e-5 Farads. They typically have to do extra work to get that number to print out correctly, as 47 e-6 Farads. The same goes for lots of signal processing entities. People doing things with Hz, seconds, you name it, have the same problem. --Keith -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
