https://codereview.appspot.com/326950044/diff/1/icu4c/source/test/testdata/numberformattestspecification.txt File icu4c/source/test/testdata/numberformattestspecification.txt (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/326950044/diff/1/icu4c/source/test/testdata/numberformattestspecification.txt#newcode368 icu4c/source/test/testdata/numberformattestspecification.txt:368: // C and J get 29.979246E7 Do they? I ...
6 years, 8 months ago
(2017-07-27 20:45:03 UTC)
#2
6 years, 8 months ago
(2017-07-27 21:05:02 UTC)
#3
On 2017/07/27 20:45:03, markus.icu wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/326950044/diff/1/icu4c/source/test/testdata/nu...
> File icu4c/source/test/testdata/numberformattestspecification.txt (right):
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/326950044/diff/1/icu4c/source/test/testdata/nu...
> icu4c/source/test/testdata/numberformattestspecification.txt:368: // C and J
get
> 29.979246E7
> Do they? I thought the next line's CJK says that they get 2.997...
The syntax definition says that you list the implementation when it *doesn't*
get the expected result. So "CJK" on line 369 means that C, J, and K all get
something unexpected. In this case, S is the only implementation that gets the
expected result.
Issue 326950044: ticket:13289 Fixing engineering notation discrepancy with the LDML spec.
(Closed)
Created 6 years, 8 months ago by sffc
Modified 6 years, 8 months ago
Reviewers: markus.icu
Base URL: svn+icussh://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/trunk/
Comments: 1