On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:57:20PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > And here's a diff to repair ^, whcih now produces correct results for
> > things like
> >
> > (dc)0.1 _1 ^p
> > or
> > (bc)0.1 ^ -1
> >
> > The diff is aga
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> And here's a diff to repair ^, whcih now produces correct results for
> things like
>
> (dc)0.1 _1 ^p
> or
> (bc)0.1 ^ -1
>
> The diff is against very current, so beware.
i've lightly tested it against gnu bc and it works
i d
Hi,
And here's a diff to repair ^, whcih now produces correct results for
things like
(dc)0.1 _1 ^p
or
(bc)0.1 ^ -1
The diff is against very current, so beware.
Please test. I have some regress test updates for dc as well. t9 turns
out to be a wrong test (computation of 2.1 ^ 500). Th
