Re: n accuracy

Thanks everybody I'll try with long-floats declarations and using the
d0 suffix.

On May 30, 1:17 pm, "Alex Mizrahi" <udode...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
(message (Hello 'Barry)
(you :wrote :on '(Wed, 30 May 2007 05:33:10 -0400))
(

??>>>> Yesterday I was lisping some statistics so I needed e, considering I
??>>>> couldn't find it at hyperspec (too much coffein I guess) so I used
??>>>> (exp 1) => 2.7182818 but author of the stat book seemed to have
??>>>> different idea about some digits.

??>> 2.7182817
??>> last value looks a bit strange, double and long versions have all
??>> digits correct.

BM> What do you get if you simply type:
BM> 2.7182818
BM> ?

it gets converted to ..17. it appears that single-presision IEEE 754 numbers
are not able to represent that decimal value correctly. so i wonder how did
OP get that result. maybe implementation with some other FP numbers..

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"I am everything you want and I am everything you need")
It's LW 5.0.1 result with type-of single-float

.