Seems to be a Xnix issue ...
version ''
j504/2005-03-16/15:30
Running in: Linux
Linux version 2.4.20-28.8 (bhcomp...@daffy.perf.redhat.com) (gcc
version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7)) #1 Thu Dec 18
12:53:39 EST 2003
0x1
2.71828
----
version ''
j602/2008-03-03/16:45
Running in: Linux
Installer: j602a_linux32.sh
Engine: j602/2008-03-03/16:45
Library: 6.02.023Linux version 2.4.20-28.8
(bhcomp...@daffy.perf.redhat.com) (gcc version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat
Linux 8.0 3.2-7)) #1 Thu Dec 18 12:53:39 EST 2003
0x1
2.71828
-----
version ''
j701/beta/2010-03-31/11:40
Running in: Linux
Installer: j701abeta_linux32.sh
Engine: j701/beta/2010-03-31/11:40
Library: 7.01.002
Linux version 2.4.20-28.8 (bhcomp...@daffy.perf.redhat.com) (gcc
version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7)) #1 Thu Dec 18
12:53:39 EST 2003
0x1
2.71828
At 12:04 PM -0400 9/29/10, Devon McCormick wrote:
>It works OK under 602 on the three different Windows XP systems on which
>I've tried it.
>
>On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Alex Gian <alexg...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
>
>> Yup, funnily enough J501 gets it right too:
>> 0x1
>> 0
>>
>> It seems that only 602 has this problem. 0p1 and 0e1 also behave
>> correctly under 602.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 09:31 +0000, neit...@gaertner.de wrote:
>> > bob therriault wrote:
>> > > 0x1
>> > >2.71828
>> > > 9!:14 ''
>> > >j602/2008-03-03/16:45
>> >
>> > Certainly looks like a bug to me.
>> >
>> > 9!:14''
>> > 4.05+GDS changes/Feb 16 2008/19:19:49
>> > 0x1
>> > 0
> > >
>> > Martin
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
