From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21079 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2013 16:06:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 31166 Received: (qmail 16137 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2013 16:05:55 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: softfail (ns1.primenet.com.au: transitioning SPF record at amazonses.com does not designate 210.118.77.12 as permitted sender) X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7fd76d000007247-77-51473b5f43ab Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:05:50 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: zcal bug Message-id: <20130318160550.14b4c1e1@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <514738F4.8050001@sergio.spb.ru> References: <51472D88.9030206@sergio.spb.ru> <20130318153728.2cde914e@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <514738F4.8050001@sergio.spb.ru> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42I5/e/4Fd14a/dAgydbdS0ONj9kcmD0WHXw A1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxqSuPYwFC1grls+8w9zAOI+li5GTQ0LAROLHsUXsELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hASWMkrcm7qOHcJZziSxds0csA4WAVWJluc/wWw2AUOJqZtmM4LYIgLiEmfXngeL CwuISny5fJMZxOYVsJd4OqcJrIZTQFdiwvQvYNuEBFoZJV5fCAGx+QX0Ja7+/cQEcYW9xMwr ZxghegUlfky+BzaTWUBLYvO2JlYIW15i85q3zBMYBWYhKZuFpGwWkrIFjMyrGEVTS5MLipPS c430ihNzi0vz0vWS83M3MUKC8OsOxqXHrA4xCnAwKvHw7lzvFijEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhDfT zD1QiDclsbIqtSg/vqg0J7X4ECMTB6dUA+PO73oZFt6u/p0rb9rIZeSKfV6etNezUVFv36wL BxRnzf38z2SO58GTTv/nZt6rc/j67X3vwalNWQ+U9mkv/VbmeJnt9pnCRrsZB5/eX7uBKS7/ lvjFr67F9rZlL0u7sjaEFt1doJ2m8frs4422WQFF5fc/XdgodChzmYBa+IbOqzcZy/Ykcloq sRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAj+LsMyACAAA= On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:55:32 +0400 sergio wrote: > > printf %g format. > > Sorry, I confused it with %f. I have to say it confused *me* working out what a sensible default was. You really want something like a really calculator does, but that's (I suppose, I don't know what the firmware looks like) presumably taking some arbitrary number of significant figures that they've worked out will be correct for the precision used internally. For a slightly more general purpose programmer's tool like zcalc, sticking with the standard formats available seemed a more obvious thing to do. %g looked like the least worst option. pws