decimal.py: logb: round the result if it is greater than prec

[skrah]

BPO	7048
Nosy	@rhettinger, @mdickinson, @skrah
Files	logb_additional.decTest decimal_testcases.patch: Update testcases logb.patch scaleb.patch

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/mdickinson'
closed_at = <Date 2009-12-04.11:10:35.957>
created_at = <Date 2009-10-03.13:53:16.656>
labels = ['type-bug', 'library']
title = 'decimal.py: logb: round the result if it is greater than prec'
updated_at = <Date 2009-12-04.11:10:35.956>
user = 'https://github.com/skrah'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2009-12-04.11:10:35.956>
actor = 'mark.dickinson'
assignee = 'mark.dickinson'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2009-12-04.11:10:35.957>
closer = 'mark.dickinson'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2009-10-03.13:53:16.656>
creator = 'skrah'
dependencies = []
files = ['15067', '15070', '15071', '15411']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 7048
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 18.0
messages = ['93492', '93500', '93686', '93687', '93703', '93704', '93705', '93706', '93707', '93715', '93718', '93749', '94277', '94278', '94563', '94565', '95788', '95960']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['rhettinger', 'mark.dickinson', 'skrah']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'test needed'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue7048'
versions = ['Python 2.6', 'Python 3.1', 'Python 2.7', 'Python 3.2']

[skrah]

>>> from decimal import *
>>> c = getcontext()
>>> c.prec = 2
>>> c.logb(Decimal("1E123456"))
Decimal('123456')
>>> 

This result agrees with the result of decNumber, but the spec says:
"All results are exact unless an integer result does not fit in the
available precision."

My interpretation is that the result should be 1.2E+5.

[mdickinson]

Hmm. The problem here is that the specification says nothing at all
about what should happen if the integer result does *not* fit in the
available precision, so in this case we went with the decNumber
behaviour.

Rather than rounding, I'd say that a more useful result in this case
would be to signal InvalidOperation, on the basis that an inexact result
from logb is likely to invalidate most uses of it.

Maybe we should ask Mike Cowlishaw what the intended behaviour here is?

IEEE 754-2008 (section 5.3.3) requires that languages define a
'logBFormat' type that's always big enough to hold the logB result. If
the result is a Decimal, one way to ensure this would be to place
constraints on the allowable values emax and emin for a given precision.

[mdickinson]

(Stefan emailed Mike Cowlishaw about this: thanks, Stefan!)

Mike's initial response suggests that we *should* be rounding the result
here. That is, decNumber and decimal.py are both in error, and Stefan's
interpretation is correct.

[mdickinson]

Attaching additional testcases from Mike Cowlishaw.

[rhettinger]

Mike's response makes sense to me. If the precision is 2, the result
should round to that precision. The documents showing the theory behind
the decimal spec indicate that in general mathematical operations are
exact, only the results get rounded. Also IIRC, the use of
InvalidOperation is limited to the mathematical part, not the rounding step.

[mdickinson]

Patch to update to the most recent official set of tests.

With this patch, logb and scaleb fail.

[mdickinson]

Patch to fix logb.

[mdickinson]

I don't understand the new scaleb testcases (from Mike). They look like
this:

precision: 34
maxExponent: 999999999
minExponent: -999999999
-- integer overflow in 3.61 or earlier
scbx164 scaleb 1E-999999999 -1200000000 -> NaN Invalid_operation
-- out of range
scbx165 scaleb -1E-999999999 +1200000000 -> NaN Invalid_operation

The specification says that the second operand should be in the range
+/-2*(Emax+precision) inclusive, which in this case it is. So clearly
there are additional situations in which Invalid_operation should be
signalled. It's not clear to me what those conditions are.

[mdickinson]

The IEEE 754-2008 description of scaleB makes a lot more sense, IMO:
scaleB(x, N) is simply x*10**N (assuming that B=10 and N is integral),
rounded in the usual way.

The restriction in the specification seems arbitrary and questionable.
Presumably it's intended to aid implementation in low-level languages.

[mdickinson]

Applied the fix for logb in r75275 (trunk), r75276 (py3k) and r75277
(release31-maint). r75275 still needs to be merged to the release26-maint
branch once it's unfrozen.

[skrah]

precision: 34
maxExponent: 999999999
minExponent: -999999999
-- integer overflow in 3.61 or earlier
scbx164 scaleb 1E-999999999 -1200000000 -> NaN Invalid_operation
-- out of range
scbx165 scaleb -1E-999999999 +1200000000 -> NaN Invalid_operation

I would say that this is implementation specific, as a workaround for
the overflow. This isn't in the spec at the moment.

[mdickinson]

I've updated to the newest version of the test-suite in r75285 through
r75287. As before, r75285 needs to be backported to the 2.6 maintenance
branch once its unfrozen.

I'm currently skipping those two scaleb tests, until we work out what
should be going on here.

[mdickinson]

I just want to note another problem with logb: it doesn't use the correct
context when processing NaNs. This needs a test and a fix.

[mdickinson]

Sorry; ignore that last. I was confused by the fact that the _check_nans
call came before the 'if context is None' test. But _check_nans deals
correctly with a context of None, so logb is fine.

[mdickinson]

logb fix applied to release26-maint in r75804.

[mdickinson]

Updated release26-maint to new test-suite in r75806.

[mdickinson]

There's a restriction on the second argument to scaleb in the spec,
namely that scaleb should be in the range -2*(Emax + precision) to
2*(Emax + precision) inclusive.

This restriction seems entirely arbitrary and unnecessary to me. My
guess is that it's there to ease implementation in low-level languages,
but it makes little sense for the Python implementation.

Here's a patch that removes this restriction on scaleb in the Python
implementation, and skips the corresponding tests.

[mdickinson]

Mike Cowlishaw has confirmed that the tests scbx164, scbx165 (in version
2.59 of the tests) are implementation-specific, so test_decimal is doing
the right thing in skipping them. So I think this issue can be closed.

I don't think it's worth removing the restriction on the 2nd scaleb
argument: while I still think it's arbitrary and unnecessary, keeping it
allows us to say that we're in full compliance with the specification.