|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
CChris wrote:
> Didn't Matt incorporate his parsing improvements to the interpreter?
> At any rate, the value provided corresponds to nearly 300 bits of precision.
> Even if the lowest 50 are wrong (overly pessimistic), only 17 digits would be
> wrong, and the parser should retrieve the exact same value, since a double only
> stores 53 bits.
>
> CChris
I've already replied to this, but the main thing is that from atom to string
representation there is a many-to-one correlation. That is, several binary representations
differing only in the least significant bits will translate into one string
representation.
I'm trying to think of the mathematical term for it, but basically that means
that the function is not reversible since you necessarily lose some information
in the conversion and therefore the function cannot be inverted.
Even Matt's scientific.e has limits to parsing precision between decimal/string
representation and the actual binary representation of a calculated number.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.