Re: atom = problem?

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message 

Jason Gade wrote:
> 
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> > 
> > Actually, as long as you use scientific notation, it uses the full precision
> > available to 64-bit floating point.  We should probably get there will all
> > floating point.
> > 
> 
> Does it? Can't there still be an off-by-one-or-two-LSBs error when converting
> from a string to a double? Or for numbers that don't represent perfectly in
> binary?
> 
> It's been awhile since I've messed around with this now.

It's as close as can be made.  Look in the source folder for scientific.e.

Matt

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

Search



Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu