Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG

[Pádraig Brady]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> +       /* If we go one past the end, but that number prints the
> +          same way "last" does, and prints differently from the
> +          previous number, then print "last".  This avoids problems
> +          with rounding.  For example, with the x86 it causes "seq
> +          0 0.000001 0.000003" to print 0.000003 instead of
> +          stopping at 0.000002.  */


I haven't time to look at this now,
but will soon.

A couple of points came to mind.

Is it OK to look at just 1 value "after" last?

Aren't you susceptible to whatever rounding
printf does internally?

My approach was to pull as much info from the
user supplied _strings_ which are infinite precision.

cheers,
Pádraig.