Re: bc and dc.

Hi Raplh, On 4/28/23 15:43, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Alejandro, > >> I could only see this: >> >> $ echo 'l(1114112) / l(2)' | bc -lc >> @iK1114112:C2,0:K2:C2,0:/W@r >> @i > > That's GNU bc. Its -c dumps its internal byte code rather than dc code > because it nevers runs dc. > >>

Re: bc and dc.

Hi Alejandro, > I could only see this: > > $ echo 'l(1114112) / l(2)' | bc -lc > @iK1114112:C2,0:K2:C2,0:/W@r > @i That's GNU bc. Its -c dumps its internal byte code rather than dc code because it nevers runs dc. > $ echo 'l(1114112) / l(2)' | /usr/lib/plan9/bin/bc -c > 111

Re: bc and dc. (Was: neatroff for Russian.)

Hi Ralph, On 4/28/23 11:34, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Alejandro, > > None of the below may apply to GNU's bc and dc. I prefer Unix. > >> bc(1) on the contrary, is likely to be using 'long double', for being >> able to provide so many digits. > &g

Re: bc and dc. (Was: neatroff for Russian.)

Hi Alejandro, None of the below may apply to GNU's bc and dc. I prefer Unix. > bc(1) on the contrary, is likely to be using 'long double', for being > able to provide so many digits. No, bc doesn't use a C language or machine type. The precision can be set.