<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 13/09/2019 à 16:52, Samuel Gougeon a
      écrit :<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:01b5e5e9-7e7c-ca0e-1abb-daa38ad0087e@free.fr">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 13/09/2019 à 14:22, Stéphane
        Mottelet a écrit :<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite"
        cite="mid:f5461ea0-5168-5376-7bbb-f80c2798a663@utc.fr">
        <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
          charset=UTF-8">
        <p>However, as I already said it elsewhere, some glitches such
          as the following  one do occur (see the display of whole x)<br>
        </p>
        <p>--> x=1:0.1:2<br>
           x  =<br>
             1.   1.1   1.2   1.3   1.4   1.5   1.6   1.7000000   1.8  
          1.9   2.</p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><br>
      </p>
      <p>I agree with Christophe. This output is OK for me. Aestheticism
        must be encouraged provided that it does not truncate or
        downgrade the information.<br>
        <br>
        About padding every number: Not OK. This would kill one of the
        assets of the "v" format: its compacity.<br>
        <br>
        About the fact that 1.7 can't be exactly encoded: It is very
        surprising for a so limited decimal number. But OK. I am also
        quite surprised that, in this series, only 1.7 can't be exactly
        encoded.<br>
      </p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>bitstring allows to see that only 1, 1.5 and 2 are exactly
      encoded</p>
    <p>--> bitstring(1:0.1:2)' <br>
       ans  =<br>
      <br>
      !0011111111110000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111110001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111110100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001101 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111110110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111111000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111111001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111111011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110100 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111111100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001101 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0011111111111110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 
      !<br>
      !                                                                 
      !<br>
      !0100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
      !<br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:01b5e5e9-7e7c-ca0e-1abb-daa38ad0087e@free.fr">
      <p> <br>
        So, the discussion holds on the criterion according to which
        trailing zeros must be displayed or not.</p>
      <ol>
        <li>I am wondering about the following, clearly without
          definitive opinion. Just a thought:<br>
          <br>
          After format(10), 1.7000000 is displayed if the NEXT figure is
          not 0, and 1.7 is displayed otherwise.<br>
          In other words, this would no longer refer to %eps but to the
          format's length.<br>
          The issue with this proposal is that we don't have the current
          format in mind. If all numbers are displayed in a compact
          form, we don't see the display accuracy..<br>
          <br>
          The choice to refer either to %eps or to format() could be
          proposed through the preferences.<br>
          <br>
        </li>
        <li>Instead, the discussion could also be about the IEEE
          rounding mode. In some occasion, the IEEE rounding mode below
          %eps has visible effects on results (there is something about
          this in Bugzilla on mailing lists...). Now, i guess that
          testing with a hardcoded equivalent of nearfloat() would be
          too time-consuming.<br>
        </li>
      </ol>
      <p><br>
      </p>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:users@lists.scilab.org">users@lists.scilab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/1/c3RlcGhhbmUubW90dGVsZXRAdXRjLmZy/lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users">https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/1/c3RlcGhhbmUubW90dGVsZXRAdXRjLmZy/lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Stéphane Mottelet
Ingénieur de recherche
EA 4297 Transformations Intégrées de la Matière Renouvelable
Département Génie des Procédés Industriels
Sorbonne Universités - Université de Technologie de Compiègne
CS 60319, 60203 Compiègne cedex
Tel : +33(0)344234688
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.utc.fr/~mottelet">http://www.utc.fr/~mottelet</a>
</pre>
  </body>
</html>