http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248



--- Comment #10 from Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com> 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 digits are almost always required.

So, if you try to put a decimal number into a float, it's how many s.f. you can get out again and be sure they'll be the same.  I don't see in what cases this differs from "the number of s.f. to which numbers are guaranteed to be storeable unambiguously"....

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248



--- Comment #11 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 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 define the number, more digits are almost always required.
> 
> So, if you try to put a decimal number into a float, it's how many s.f. you can get out again and be sure they'll be the same.  I don't see in what cases this differs from "the number of s.f. to which numbers are guaranteed to be storeable unambiguously"....

It may be the same. I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "unambiguously". In both directions binary<->decimal there is nearly always more than one choice.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3248



--- Comment #12 from assorted <moi667@hotmail.com> 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 same.
> > 
> > I doubt it ... I think the optimal number of decimal s.f. would depend on the binary exponent.  But I'll experiment when I have time.

You are correct, removing trailing zeros from %.8e isn't optimal, but I thought it was at least lossless..

> 
> You are correct. Some numbers need an extra digit.
> 

Could you maybe provide one?
As I did some ranges with nextUp and didn't find any.

A near optimal lossless formatting is fine too :)

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------