On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:51:47AM -0500, Philippe Meunier wrote:
> kshe wrote:
> >If the number `002' is said to have only one digit because the zeros in
> [...]
> >the integer logarithm, thus being nothing but arbitrary, and as such of
> >little practical value.
>
> Yes, yes, but "number of digits" and "integer logarithm" are two different
> things. You sound suspiciously like a mathematician who's trying to
> redefine the word "cow" to mean "sphere" simply because he's got a neat
> formula to compute the volume of a sphere :-)
>
> 0 *is* a digit, and not all leading zeroes are superfluous. If all leading
> zeroes were superfluous then would be a number, which it is not, neither in
> mathematics nor in everyday life. I'm not interested in getting into a
> food fight over this, and I'm not the one writing the code anyway, but I
> think trying to twist the rather plain meaning of "number of digits" into
> the shape of a mathematical pretzel is not helpful. If anything, it's GNU
> dc that needs to be changed. Anyway, I'm done with this topic.
>
> Philippe
>
No need to get upset. Just read it as number of significant decimal digits.
And it's not only GNU dc, the original dc produced 0 as well for 0Z
-Otto
