David N. Williams wrote: > > Anton Ertl wrote: > > David N. Williams wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>There's a reason to prefer the first version. Sometimes you > >>want an accurate decimal representation of a radix 2, 64-bit > >>floating point number considered as exact. > > > > > > This gives very long numbers for small numbers; I would guess around > > 700 digits in exponential notation and 1000 in plain notation. > > Only if you believe the standard means what it says about > significant figures in SET-PRECISION, and not what at least one > knowledgable person thought it meant! :-)
My comment was not about ANS Forth at all. It was simply a statement about how many digits you need for an exact decimal representation of 2^-1000. IEEE DP FP numbers can actually can have numbers down to 2^-1055, and 8087 extended precision can have numbers down to 2^-16447. - anton --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
