[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Ken Dickey <Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: exponential number*From*: soo <tilde@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: 28 May 2004 20:06:07 +0900*Cc*: srfi-48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <200405271138.16688.Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <8765aixdqo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200405271138.16688.Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Sender*: soo <soo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

* From: Ken Dickey <Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> * Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:38:15 -0700 * Subj: Re: exponential number | On Thursday 27 May 2004 05:21 am, soo wrote: >> The following seems to be a bug of FORMAT. >> (round 1.23e20) >> 1.23e+20 >> (format "~0,3F" 1.23e20) >> "1.230e+20" >> (round 1.23e-20) >> 0.0 >> (format "~0,3F" 1.23e-20) >> "0.000" | Why do you think the above is a bug? What do you think is wrong? I think that the above result should be "1.230e-20" in implementations that 1.23e-20 is evaluated to 1.23e-20. If an system evaluates 1.23e-20 to 0.0, the above "0.000" is right. The problem is that FORMAT coerces 1.23e-20 to be evaluated to 0.0 with ROUND. > 1.23e-20 > 1.23e-20 > (format "~0,3F" 1.23e-20) > "0.000" -- INITERM

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: exponential number***From:*Ken Dickey

**References**:**exponential number***From:*soo

**Re: exponential number***From:*Ken Dickey

- Prev by Date:
**Re: exponential number** - Next by Date:
**Re: exponential number** - Previous by thread:
**Re: exponential number** - Next by thread:
**Re: exponential number** - Index(es):