Anonymous user
Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included): Difference between revisions
Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included) (view source)
Revision as of 12:57, 17 September 2020
, 3 years ago→failure of ooRexx using Classic REXX example: added some comments, corrected a misspelling.
m (→failure of ooRexx using Classic REXX example: added some comments, corrected a misspelling.) |
|||
Line 142:
ooRexx gives me
5 *-* n=5** (4** (3** 2)) /*calc. multiple
Error 26 running Z:\huge.rex line 5: Invalid whole number
Error 26.8: Operand to the right of the power operator (**) must be a whole number; found "2.6214E+5"
Line 150:
No answer yet. numeric digits 6 at the start fixes the problem for ooRexx --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
: (Note: the above comments should've been placed under the ooRexx language section, or here, on the discussion page.
: Yes, Regina and R4 are both very lenient (liberal?) in their usage of exponents. But increasing the numeric digits just bypasses the problem, it doesn't fix it in that it is apparently one more difference between ooRexx and Classic REXXes.
: thereby bypassing the use/limit of '''numeric digits 5''' (as in the older/replaced 2<sup>nd</sup> version). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)▼
▲:
| |||