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

*To*: soo <tilde@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: exponential number*From*: Ken Dickey <Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 28 May 2004 05:33:57 -0700*Cc*: srfi-48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <87hdu04xr4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Organization*: BitWize Consulting*References*: <8765aixdqo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200405271138.16688.Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87hdu04xr4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: KMail/1.6.2

On Friday 28 May 2004 04:06 am, soo wrote: > >> (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. This is acceptable behavior. To quote again from SRFI-48: "For very large or very small numbers, the point where exponential notation is used is implementation defined. " You are certainly welcome to provide your own implementation. Cheers, -KenD

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: exponential number***From:*Paul Schlie

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

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

**Re: exponential number***From:*soo

- 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):