Re: About fltexpr

[Duncan Roe via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 02:39:38AM +0200, pou...@tutamail.com wrote:
> Sep 21, 2025, 19:33 by bug-bash@gnu.org:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Bash development wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:39:29 +0300 Oğuz wrote:
> >> > > Could fltexpr maybe link to some other libm that is correctly rounded,
> >> > > like GNU MPFR, or LLVM's libm, to mention just a few?
> >> >
> >> > What would be the point of that? Use bc if you need more precision
> >>
> >> If think for a moment, you'll realize that my question was different
> >> than what you answered.
> >>
> >> And as to your question, the point would be the same as having fltexpr
> >> in the first place, rather than shelling out to external commands.
> >>
> > What external command did you have in mind? printf is a shell builtin
> >
> What external command? It's in what you quoted:
> He suggests I use bc.
>
>
Indeed. I was thinking about a previous post where someone suggested printf,
which could round the answer to less digits. That's what you want isn't it?