Anton Ertl wrote:
David N. Williams wrote:

> [...]

There's a reason to prefer the first version.  Sometimes you
want an accurate decimal representation of a radix 2, 64-bit
floating point number considered as exact.

This gives very long numbers for small numbers; I would guess around
700 digits in exponential notation and 1000 in plain notation.
Only if you believe the standard means what it says about significant figures in SET-PRECISION, and not what at least one knowledgable person thought it meant! :-)

But I see on c.l.f. that you're filling the formatted output gap!

-- David



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to