Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2003
Abigail wrote: > If this "some point" isn't at the maximum size of what fits in an > integer, than I think this fact should be documented clearly. If there's > no indication where this "some point" is, it would reduce the value of > -Dusemorebits to below the level of "useful". Except that will be different for 64-bit vs 32-bit machines. Not to mention strange machines (ISTR Cray's have odd opinions of what integers and floats should cover). > Or is it even so > 1001 ** 2 can't be garanteed to stringify to 1002001? That's a completely different issue. Where the NV default stringification switches to exponential notation is a complete different issue from where the default mathematics switches to NV instead of IV. > > I most certainly do think it's a bug. The number to be squared was > carefully picked to be less than the square root of 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF. But the fact that _you_ know the exponent will fit doesn't easily translate into Perl being able to forsee that. I'll try and look at the core logic when I get home. John -- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4501 Forbes Boulevard Suite H Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5748Thread Previous | Thread Next