On Tue, Jul 4, 2023, 14:01 Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 10:40:26AM +0200, alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2023, 01:52 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/3/23 5:56 PM, alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> > >
> > > > looked into non finite number libs ?
> > > > gawk like .. ?
> > >
> > > bignums? No. intmax_t is enough for the shell.
> > >
> >
> > yea , bignums .. sad
> > .. greets
>
> Seriously, why would you need this inside a shell? You have access to
> bc(1) if your mostly-bash project requires it.
>
> I could see an argument for adding floating point arithmetic, as I
> believe one of the Korn shells does, but not bignums.
>
> If you want a scripting language with bignums, there are others -- like
> Tcl, for example.
>
> unicorn:~$ tclsh
> % expr {2**63}
> 9223372036854775808
> % expr {1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8*9*10*11*12*13*14*15*16*17*18*19*20*21*22}
> 1124000727777607680000
>
mate , again , i know bash and awk and no more
the chat days are due to unfair too bad admining over
docs .. i cant read .. its always too bad quality
i learned bash and awk via chats before ur time
to continue here instead up some ,
to me a 32 64 b int ( not even float ) is bad nonsense
why would u possibly want this , limitation , excepts u dunno to code it
i cant use any bash math and stuff cause .. what can i do with it ? [ not
so much ]
i had over the years a few ideas , now not anymore
i d use gawk for bignum math , as i know it well anyway
but i just say its old outdated limitation contra
greets
>
