https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Stefan Koch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uplink.co...@gmail.com
--- Comment #17 from Ste
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Ben changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ben.james.jo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #16 from Ben ---
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #15 from Andrei Alexandrescu ---
Anyone working on this?
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hst...@quickfur.ath.cx |
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Andrei Alexandrescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unspecified |D2
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
yebblies changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yebbl...@gmail.com
--- Comment #14 from yebblies
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
--- Comment #1
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #12 from assorted 2009-09-07 11:24:37 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > As far as I understand it, removing trailing zeros from .8 precision and
> > > (c)
> > > are the s
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #11 from Don 2009-09-07 05:02:15 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > Neither. It's the number of sic figs which are accurate in the worst case.
> > So
> > it's the _minimum_ number of digits which are stored. To unambiguously
>
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #10 from Stewart Gordon 2009-09-07 04:41:58 PDT ---
> Neither. It's the number of sic figs which are accurate in the worst case. So
> it's the _minimum_ number of digits which are stored. To unambiguously define
> the number, more d
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #9 from Don 2009-09-07 04:25:35 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > As far as I understand it, removing trailing zeros from .8 precision and (c)
> > are the same.
>
> I doubt it ... I think the optimal n
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #8 from Stewart Gordon 2009-09-07 02:58:19 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> As far as I understand it, removing trailing zeros from .8 precision and (c)
> are the same.
I doubt it ... I think the optimal number of decimal s.f. wo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #7 from assorted 2009-08-15 09:55:41 PDT ---
Does this mean I can forget about getting this in phobos?
Could then at least an option be added to remove those trailing zeros for %f?
I don't see why %g should be that privileged ;)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Andrei Alexandrescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||and...@metalanguage.com
--- Co
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #4 from assorted 2009-08-12 19:45:28 PDT ---
As far as I understand it, removing trailing zeros from .8 precision and (c)
are the same.
This is because the first (right to left) non-zero you encounter is there
because of 2^x.
I
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Stewart Gordon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
--- Comment #3 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
--- Comment #2 from assorted 2009-08-12 15:40:10 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It's not that easy, actually. When should it print 0.0, and
> when should it print 0.1 ? The code to do it correctly is amazingly
> complicat
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #1 from Don
21 matches
Mail list logo
