> But you can't get away from that via any decimal rounding rule. One of > the *objections* the 754 committee had to the Scheme rule is that moving > rounded shortest-possible decimal output to a platform with greater > precision could cause the latter platform to read in an unnecessarily poor > approximation to the actual number written on the source platform. It's > simply a fact that decimal 1.1000000000000001 is a closer approximation to > the number stored in an IEEE double (given input "1.1" perfectly rounded > to IEEE double format) than decimal 1.1, and that has consequences too > when moving to a wider precision. But if you're moving to a wider precision, surely there is an even better decimal approximation to the IEEE-rounded "1.1" than 1.1000000000000001 (with even more digits), so isn't the preceding paragraph a justification for using that approximation instead?
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4