Fix up at http://sagemath.org:9002/sage_trac/ticket/701
- Robert On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Jaap Spies wrote: > > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> I've fixed this (patch forthcoming). I don't think we can do >> something that always does the "right" thing for floating points >> though, as >> >> sage: sum([1.1]*10) < 11 >> True >> sage: sum([1.3]*10) > 13 >> True >> >> This is NOT a bug in Sage so much as an artifact of the way computers >> store floating point numbers. Now, with the decimal literal thing >> that I was toying with, perhaps we could do accurate sranges anyways. >> >> - Robert >> > > Yes. That is evident, but in my simple example the endpoint should be > included. > >> >> On Sep 21, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Jaap Spies wrote: >> >>> The new (fast) srange function with include_endpoint=True >>> dus not include the endpoint in some cases: >>> >>> sage: srange(1.0, 5.0, include_endpoint=True) >>> [1.00000000000000, 2.00000000000000, 3.00000000000000, >>> 4.00000000000000] >>> >>> Jaap >>> > > Jaap > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
