Paul Eggert wrote: > + /* If we go one past the end, but that number prints the > + same way "last" does, and prints differently from the > + previous number, then print "last". This avoids problems > + with rounding. For example, with the x86 it causes "seq > + 0 0.000001 0.000003" to print 0.000003 instead of > + stopping at 0.000002. */
I haven't time to look at this now, but will soon. A couple of points came to mind. Is it OK to look at just 1 value "after" last? Aren't you susceptible to whatever rounding printf does internally? My approach was to pull as much info from the user supplied _strings_ which are infinite precision. cheers, Pádraig. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
