Philip Potter wrote:
2009/11/4 David Lee :
[...]
Anyway, your explanation was useful and gives us sufficient to decide how to
address our local use of these numbers. (In our case, they are
human-oriented accumulated byte-counts, for which we don't actually need
that significance/precision.)
Philip Potter wrote:
I would guess that these numbers are being stored in floats, and that
these floats are 64-bit double precision, with 53 bits of mantissa.
That means that there are just under 16 decimal digits of precision in
these numbers. print and friends seem to automatically print no mo
2009/11/4 David Lee :
> Many thanks for the reply.
>
> Following the initial surprise, my main concern was that attempts to unearth
> a description or explanation (i.e. documentation) for the observed behaviour
> was so tricky. For instance, there was nothing obvious in the relevant
> parts of "Pr
2009/11/3 David Lee :
> Although I've used perl for many years, I've just been surprised (in the
> unpleasant sense) by a recent event. Given a variable, say "$int", which is
> a growing integer, I would expect "print $int" to print it as a simple
> integer; indeed it usually does so. But when it
Although I've used perl for many years, I've just been surprised (in the
unpleasant sense) by a recent event. Given a variable, say "$int",
which is a growing integer, I would expect "print $int" to print it as a
simple integer; indeed it usually does so. But when its size takes it
from 15 de
