Re: exponential number

[soo <tilde@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 * 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