Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!194.109.133.81.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.025 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.95; '*S*': 0.00; 'parser': 0.07; '0.1': 0.09; 'integers': 0.09; 'wrong,': 0.09; "wouldn't": 0.14; '1):': 0.16; 'digits.': 0.16; 'unnecessary.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'thu,': 0.19; '>>>': 0.22; 'case.': 0.24; 'either.': 0.24; 'propose': 0.24; 'this:': 0.26; 'second': 0.26; 'pass': 0.26; 'least': 0.26; 'certain': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'chris': 0.29; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; "d'aprano": 0.31; 'steven': 0.31; 'received:209.85': 0.35; 'equal': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'scheme': 0.36; 'received:209': 0.37; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'expect': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'how': 0.40; 'ensure': 0.60; '30,': 0.65; 'world': 0.66; 'actually,': 0.84; 'this!': 0.93; '2013': 0.98 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=i/wSWZSM8sPW9uRnDa2KCvfs6Mr2/jkH/ZhE/Hz1U08=; b=wFkwri05UpZP9aH6Y6jo4WXw0SnvquAzOa6LMpyRx/ZWKKt0RYp5gihBbusv1uvrfl V7AMj3yMGbmFAhxH3JtvpnPUk7EIKMuJl9LZfUqng0Bil4fRsQXwOnlamyWvT5UvuZgx u+hTDWHXjBO+13FYzt+azPNtJ/CFtjK2VUQ8YObULpWWL41I4DiQVcD4Ojc0wnMv56qs gFU0Z4vgfBUzHWPxqjJ9ubcsBjkiY7bXO8vZPfS5V4sKbpN8A9KSaNNmfZwqodCxDPTl d0qSmjAKXd+NIlq+Cm0Vo7NyhpUY9xP8+o9gpIkbs2yha+Ukho0dVxMURnoJTP6hTrDM ny0A== X-Received: by 10.68.42.134 with SMTP id o6mr9524924pbl.149.1369943423799; Thu, 30 May 2013 12:50:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <5f101d70-e51f-4531-9153-c92ee2486fd9@googlegroups.com> <51a1fc7b$0$30002$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <2abf4e9c-8c3b-4e2f-80c9-50c1f1d75c9d@googlegroups.com> <51a4b5a1$0$29966$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <04b90c02-833a-4bad-88ad-ab71178b8f79@googlegroups.com> <51a6df59$0$11118$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> From: Ian Kelly Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:49:43 -0600 Subject: Re: Short-circuit Logic To: Python Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1369943426 news.xs4all.nl 15932 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:60798 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:46540 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Neil Cerutti wrote: > On 2013-05-30, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano >> wrote: >>> # Wrong, don't do this! >>> x = 0.1 >>> while x != 17.3: >>> print(x) >>> x += 0.1 >> >> Actually, I wouldn't do that with integers either. > > I propose borrowing the concept of significant digits from the > world of Physics. > > The above has at least three significant digits. With that scheme > x would approximately equal 17.3 when 17.25 <= x < 17.35. > > But I don't see immediately how to calculate 17.25 and 17.35 from > 17.3, 00.1 and 3 significant digits. How about this: while round(x, 1) != round(17.3, 1): pass The second round call may be unnecessary. I would expect the parser to ensure that round(17.3, 1) == 17.3, but I'm not certain that is the case.