On 2 November 2013 22:40, Mischa Baars wrote: > > There's no converting to any string in your example. You only convert source > code strings into their corresponding doubles.
Right. I never claimed my example converts to string, I said your example does. > What I'm trying to point out is that the output differs from the value > entered in the source. The string 1.1 from the source is not correctly > converted to it's corresponding double, or the double is not correctly > converted back into it's corresponding string. And what I'm trying to tell you is that the "corresponding double" for 1.1 is not equal to 1.1, you cannot represent the value 1.1 in a double or long double, it's not possible, but you seem unwilling or incapable of understanding that. Please read the Goldberg paper and stop wasting people's time.
