On 13 May 2010 17:06, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu May 13 12:05:13 EDT 2010, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> sorry, misunderstanding, i meant that (64-bit) floating point is
>> ok for integer ops if you stick to 32 bit and don't do divisions.
>>
>
> ah! ok. i was wondering about that.
>
> ideally
On 13 May 2010 16:54, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> what do you mean by "its output isn't suitable for use as input"? i'm just
> curious, have never used it that way. hum... having asked that question i
> tried some operations producing very lare numbers and they started to be
> printed with backsl
On Thu May 13 12:05:13 EDT 2010, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
> sorry, misunderstanding, i meant that (64-bit) floating point is
> ok for integer ops if you stick to 32 bit and don't do divisions.
>
ah! ok. i was wondering about that.
ideally one would have a mp library as go uses
for constants.
On 13 May 2010, at 16:16, roger peppe wrote:
On 13 May 2010 15:23, erik quanstrom wrote:
i typically do programming calculations and floating point
just isn't the right way to do that.
it's ok if you stick to 32 bit and don't do divisions.
personally for off-the-cuff command-line calculati
sorry, misunderstanding, i meant that (64-bit) floating point is
ok for integer ops if you stick to 32 bit and don't do divisions.
On 13 May 2010 16:31, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu May 13 11:28:29 EDT 2010, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 13 May 2010 15:23, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> > i typica
> I normally use acid for interactive use, but for scripts bc is great,
> supports hex,
> has C like syntax, can do floating point and it has a big precision.
doesn't do bit shifting, masking and whatnot.
if acid were to grace stderr with its prompt, it would
be easy to use in a scripty sort of w
On Thu May 13 11:28:29 EDT 2010, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 15:23, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > i typically do programming calculations and floating point
> > just isn't the right way to do that.
>
> it's ok if you stick to 32 bit and don't do divisions.
what!?
acid: (1<<36) / 10\Y
On 13 May 2010 16:23, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> > echo 1 2 | hoc -e '{while(read(x) != 0)y += x' ^ $nl ^ ' print y, "\n"}'
>>
>> Maybe it makes a sense to add in hoc(1) expression delimiter like a ';'?
>
> i don't use hoc very often. i tend to use acid. (!)
> this is because hoc won't do bit oper
On 13 May 2010 15:23, erik quanstrom wrote:
> i typically do programming calculations and floating point
> just isn't the right way to do that.
it's ok if you stick to 32 bit and don't do divisions.
personally for off-the-cuff command-line calculations
i've been using my own "fc" for years and
y
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:23 PM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
>> > echo 1 2 | hoc -e '{while(read(x) != 0)y += x' ^ $nl ^ ' print y, "\n"}'
>>
>> Maybe it makes a sense to add in hoc(1) expression delimiter like a ';'?
>
> i don't use hoc very often. i tend to use acid. (!)
> this is because hoc won't
On 13 May 2010, at 15:23, erik quanstrom wrote:
echo 1 2 | hoc -e '{while(read(x) != 0)y += x' ^ $nl ^ ' print y,
"\n"}'
Maybe it makes a sense to add in hoc(1) expression delimiter like a
';'?
i don't use hoc very often. i tend to use acid. (!)
this is because hoc won't do bit operati
> > echo 1 2 | hoc -e '{while(read(x) != 0)y += x' ^ $nl ^ ' print y, "\n"}'
>
> Maybe it makes a sense to add in hoc(1) expression delimiter like a ';'?
i don't use hoc very often. i tend to use acid. (!)
this is because hoc won't do bit operations and doesn't
accept hex.
i typically do progr
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:24:47 +0400, erik quanstrom
wrote:
On Thu May 13 03:51:56 EDT 2010, santu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I'm agree, but with one exception - awk(1) separates a data from a
code, hoc(1) doesn't do it. So hoc(1) can be used for plain calculation
tasks, not for processing inpu
On Thu May 13 03:51:56 EDT 2010, santu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes, I'm agree, but with one exception - awk(1) separates a data from a
> code, hoc(1) doesn't do it. So hoc(1) can be used for plain calculation
> tasks, not for processing input files with a data.
both awk and hoc accept standard inpu
Yes, I'm agree, but with one exception - awk(1) separates a data from a
code, hoc(1) doesn't do it. So hoc(1) can be used for plain calculation
tasks, not for processing input files with a data.
On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:06:20 +0400, Akshat Kumar
wrote:
I've found that awk(1) is more useful
(
I've found that awk(1) is more useful
(rather, more powerful) for doing
programmed computations (number
crunching, etc.), where hoc(1) is
more of a convenience for basic
calculations.
Best,
ak
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Alexander Sychev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> IFAIK, hoc(1) hasn't got such po
Hello!
IFAIK, hoc(1) hasn't got such possibility.
awk(1) can help:
$ hoc -e PI | awk '{printf "%2.2f", $0}'
3.14
On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:24:57 +0400, Rudolf Sykora
wrote:
Hello everyone,
is there any way to control the output format of hoc(1), i.e. e.g. the
number of decimal places printe
17 matches
Mail list logo
