On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 10:49:03 +1000 Duncan Roe wrote:
> Indeed. I was thinking about a previous post where someone suggested printf,
> which could round the answer to less digits. That's what you want isn't it?

There's printf in Bash, and there's printf in C. Why would I have to do
it in Bash, when the correct output can come directly from the C program? 

Besides, I can't readily clean up the trailing zeros with printf, I will
still have to do some extra juggling on top of that, to get the answer "0.3".

And no, I can't simply tell printf to print me only one digit after the dot,
because I don't know beforehand how many digits the answer will have.


  • Re: About fltexp... Greg Wooledge
  • Re: About fltexp... Lawrence Velázquez
    • Re: About f... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
      • Re: Abo... Duncan Roe via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
  • Re: About fltexp... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
    • Re: About f... Oğuz
      • Re: Abo... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
        • Re:... Duncan Roe via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
          • ... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
            • ... Duncan Roe via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
              • ... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
              • ... Duncan Roe via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
              • ... Andreas Schwab
              • ... Chet Ramey
    • Re: About f... Andreas Schwab
  • Re: About fltexp... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
    • Re: About f... Lawrence Velázquez
      • Re: Abo... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
        • Re:... Lawrence Velázquez
          • ... pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
            • ... Lawrence Velázquez

Reply via email to