I have wondered the details on just how x: determines the best rational. Maybe that approach would do what your are asking. It bothers me that the third number below becomes 63r10.
x:6.2999999999999998 6.3 62999999999999998r10000000000000000 63r10 63r10 63r10 OK. I answered my own question. The third number was forced to float. x:62999999999999998r10000000000000000 31499999999999999r5000000000000000 On 10/2/07, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me that if a number displayed with the digits > indicated by 9!:10 has exactly the same bit pattern as that > number displayed to full precision then the more concise > variant should be used. > > Currently, we get: > > 6.3&] > 6.2999999999999998&] > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
