Added a new NORMALIZE_NUMBERS option, which causes number literals in

the expected output to match corresponding number literals in the
actual output if their values are equal (to ten digits of precision).

1 files changed, 19 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex b/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex
index 2635486..a30a432 100644
--- a/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex
+++ b/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex
@@ -581,6 +581,17 @@ TypeError: object doesn't support item assignment
 
 \end{datadesc}
 
+\begin{datadesc}{NORMALIZE_NUMBERS}
+    When specified, number literals in the expected output will match
+    corresponding number literals in the actual output if their values
+    are equal (to ten digits of precision).  For example, \code{1.1}
+    will match \code{1.1000000000000001}; and \code{1L} will match
+    \code{1} and \code{1.0}.  Currently, \constant{NORMALIZE_NUMBERS}
+    can fail to normalize numbers when used in conjunction with
+    ellipsis.  In particular, if an ellipsis marker matches one or
+    more numbers, then number normalization is not supported.
+\end{datadesc}
+
 \begin{datadesc}{COMPARISON_FLAGS}
     A bitmask or'ing together all the comparison flags above.
 \end{datadesc}
@@ -702,7 +713,7 @@ can be useful.
 
 \versionchanged[Constants \constant{DONT_ACCEPT_BLANKLINE},
     \constant{NORMALIZE_WHITESPACE}, \constant{ELLIPSIS},
-    \constant{IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL},
+    \constant{IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL}, \constant{NORMALIZE_NUMBERS},
     \constant{REPORT_UDIFF}, \constant{REPORT_CDIFF},
     \constant{REPORT_NDIFF}, \constant{REPORT_ONLY_FIRST_FAILURE},
     \constant{COMPARISON_FLAGS} and \constant{REPORTING_FLAGS}
@@ -740,6 +751,7 @@ in any particular order, so a test like
 
 % Hey! What happened to Monty Python examples?
 % Tim: ask Guido -- it's his example!
+% doctest: ignore
 \begin{verbatim}
 >>> foo()
 {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
@@ -747,6 +759,7 @@ in any particular order, so a test like
 
 is vulnerable!  One workaround is to do
 
+% doctest: ignore
 \begin{verbatim}
 >>> foo() == {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
 True
@@ -754,6 +767,7 @@ True
 
 instead.  Another is to do
 
+% doctest: ignore
 \begin{verbatim}
 >>> d = foo().items()
 >>> d.sort()
@@ -765,6 +779,7 @@ There are others, but you get the idea.
 
 Another bad idea is to print things that embed an object address, like
 
+% doctest: ignore
 \begin{verbatim}
 >>> id(1.0) # certain to fail some of the time
 7948648
@@ -776,6 +791,7 @@ Another bad idea is to print things that embed an object address, like
 The \constant{ELLIPSIS} directive gives a nice approach for the last
 example:
 
+% doctest: ignore
 \begin{verbatim}
 >>> C() #doctest: +ELLIPSIS
 <__main__.C instance at 0x...>
@@ -785,6 +801,7 @@ Floating-point numbers are also subject to small output variations across
 platforms, because Python defers to the platform C library for float
 formatting, and C libraries vary widely in quality here.
 
+% doctest: ignore
 \begin{verbatim}
 >>> 1./7  # risky
 0.14285714285714285
@@ -1618,6 +1635,7 @@ Doctest provides several mechanisms for debugging doctest examples:
 
       Then an interactive Python session may look like this:
 
+% doctest: ignore
 \begin{verbatim}
 >>> import a, doctest
 >>> doctest.testmod(a)