Re: Bug in srfi-48?

The patches offered thus far seem to have addressed the problems I
previously reported. But here's another:

1> (format "~7,2F" 18.0000000000008)
"  18.0."
1>

And I am seeing symptoms in my application that other numbers are not
being displayed correctly. I have not chased them down yet, but will
try to do so and report if I find anything.

I must say that it's disconcerting to be finding all these problems in
code that was finalized in 2004. I think at the very least, a warning
should be posted in an appropriate place that issues have been found
with this srfi, efforts are being made to correct them, and until
further notice, its use may not produce correct results.

/Don

On 12 October 2017 at 22:09, Donald Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 October 2017 at 19:13, Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Donald Allen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about this:
>>
>>
>> I apologize.  That should have been obvious to me.  I've been trying to do
>> too many things at once over the past few days.
>>
>> Would you mind trying Shiro Kawai's patch?
>
> I applied both yours and Shiro Kawai"s patches:
>
> 1>  (format "~a & ~7,2F\\%\\\\\n" "Framingham Mass Muni Purpose Loan"
> 1.997554209949891)
> "Framingham Mass Muni Purpose Loan &    2.00\\%\\\\\n"
> 1>  (format "~a & ~7,2F\\%\\\\\n" "Framingham Mass Muni Purpose Loan"
> .997554209949891)
> "Framingham Mass Muni Purpose Loan &    1.00\\%\\\\\n"
> 1> (format "~7,2F" .997554209949891)
> "   1.00"
> 1> (format "~7,2F" .99755420)
> "   1.00"
> 1> (format "~7,2F" .99755)
> "   1.00"
> 1> (format "~7,2F" .997)
> "   1.00"
> 1> (format "~7,2F" .99)
> "    .99"
> 1>
>
> Looks good. Thanks very much.
>
> /Don
>
>>
>> (Thank you, Mr. Kawai.)