John Cowan wrote:
> Pádraig Brady scripsit:
>
>> The issue and work around are documented in the info page,
>> but why don't we do the suggestion automatically in code
>> (using the precision that is automatically worked out already)?
>
> That implies using either a fixed-point or a decimal-based floating-point
> package. GNU gmp seems to be the obvious candidate.
Yes you could use gmp, but for normal uses of `seq`
you could just use appropriate comparisons?
How about the following patch, and we can also
remove the workaround info from the docs.
Pádraig.
--- seq.orig.c 2007-06-08 07:50:24.000000000 +0000
+++ seq.c 2007-06-08 09:05:23.000000000 +0000
@@ -357,6 +357,10 @@
}
}
+ /* perhaps can use nextafterl? */
+ #define PRECISION 1.0E-15
+ last.value += step.value + (step.value>0?-PRECISION:PRECISION);
+
if (format_str != NULL && equal_width)
{
error (0, 0, _("\
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
