On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:37:14 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 10/17/25 2:33 PM, Grisha Levit wrote: > > > A zero precision just cuts the decimal point and everything following it. > > > This is what ksh93 does, and consistent with what POSIX interp 267 > > > specified (the TIMEFORMAT part never actually made it into the standard). > > > > I read that but didn't find anything that suggested a precision of 0 be > > treated specially w.r.t. rounding. I think this is the relevant part of > > the proposed text: > > > > The optional p is a decimal digit specifying > > the precision, the number of digits after the > > decimal point. A value of 0 shall not display > > the decimal point. > > I interpreted a zero precision to mean you don't even look at the > fractional part
The same way you could argue that a two precision to mean you don't even look past the second digit after the decimal point. No, I don't see why 0 should get a "special" treatment, different than the other precisions, when it could be easily rounded just the same way.
