Awesome! On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:08 AM Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 03:26:54PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Attached is a patch for #1627. > > > > I'm not happy with the hacky way the reader deals with these, but I could > > not really come up with a clean solution for it. Suggestions for > > improvement are welcome. > > There was a small bug in the previous patch; it would also carry the sign > of the exponent into the final result, which is definitely not correct. > Very obscure case, but the nice numbers test suite from S7 found it :) > > I also found another case: if there was an exponent at all, it would not > propagate the sign (so -0e1 would be 0.0 instead of -0.0). I had to move > the go-inexact! call from scan-exponent down into scan-ureal, where the > sign is known. This is fine, as the other call to scan-exponent was > inside scan-decimal-tail, before which scan-ureal already calls > go-inexact! as well. > > This new patch has additional test cases for this as well. > > Cheers, > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Chicken-hackers mailing list > Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers >
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
