> On Mar 22, 2019, at 7:25 PM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 22 Mar 2019, at 18:07 , Martin Maechler
>> wrote:
>>
>> gives (on Linux R 3.5.3, Fedora 28)
>>
>> d=10 d=7 d=2 d=1 d=0
>> [1,] "123456" "123456" "123456" "1e+05" "%#4.0-1e"
>> [
> On 22 Mar 2019, at 18:07 , Martin Maechler wrote:
>
> gives (on Linux R 3.5.3, Fedora 28)
>
> d=10 d=7 d=2 d=1 d=0
> [1,] "123456" "123456" "123456" "1e+05" "%#4.0-1e"
> [2,] "12345.6""12345.6""12346" "12346" "%#4.0-1e"
> [3,] "1234.56
> peter dalgaard
> on Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:30:19 +0100 writes:
> FWIW, it doesn't seem to be happening on Mac OS:
>> format(2^30, digits=0)
> [1] "1.e+09"
>> prettyNum(12345.6, digits=0)
> [1] "1.e+04"
> A glibc misfeature?
It seems (and note we are talking ab
FWIW, it doesn't seem to be happening on Mac OS:
> format(2^30, digits=0)
[1] "1.e+09"
> prettyNum(12345.6, digits=0)
[1] "1.e+04"
A glibc misfeature?
-pd
> On 22 Mar 2019, at 10:10 , Martin Maechler wrote:
>
> Thank you, Robert for raising this here !
>
>> Robert McGehee
>>on T
eems to
make the problem disappear for me in all cases. However, the odd output I
encountered along the way seemed worthy of comment.
HTH, Robert
-Original Message-
From: Martin Maechler [mailto:maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 5:11 AM
To: Robert McGehee
Thank you, Robert for raising this here !
> Robert McGehee
> on Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:56:19 + writes:
> R developers,
> Seems I get a bad result ("%#4.0-1e" in particular) when trying to use
prettyNum digits=0 with scientific notation. I tried on both my Linux box and
on
R developers,
Seems I get a bad result ("%#4.0-1e" in particular) when trying to use
prettyNum digits=0 with scientific notation. I tried on both my Linux box and
on an online R evaluator and saw the same problem, so it's not limited to my
box at least. I see the problem in both R 3.5.3 and R 3.
