From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:36:02 +0100

To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>

Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>, <jkenton@datapower.com>

Message-Id: <20040405163628.72AA7A2F61@frink.w3.org>

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:36:02 +0100

To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>

Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>, <jkenton@datapower.com>

Message-Id: <20040405163628.72AA7A2F61@frink.w3.org>

> > > > If the types of $arg1 and $arg2 are xs:integer or xs:decimal, then > > the result is of type xs:decimal. The precision of the result is > > implementation-defined, but it must be not be less than min((18, > > max((p1, p2)), R)) digits, where p1 is the precision of $arg1, p2 is > > the precision of $arg2, and R is the number of digits (possibly > > infinite) required to represent the exact mathematical result. > > "Precision" here means the total number of significant decimal > > digits in the value; all digits are considered significant other > > than leading zeros before the decimal point and trailing zeros after > > the decimal point. If rounding is necessary, the value must be > > rounded towards zero. Handling of overflow and underflow is defined > > in section 6.2. > > Using the precision of the two arguments to determine the precision of > the result leads to results that I find strange. For example: > > 1 div 3 => 0.3 > 1000000 div 3000000 => 0.3333333 > 0.00001 div 0.00003 => 0.33333 > > It would make a lot more sense to me to just use min((18, R)), but any > definition here is better than none. What cases were you thinking of > that led you to suggest using the precision of the arguments to > determine the precision of the result? > You're right, the formula doesn't work in these cases. The cases I was thinking of are where p1 or p2 are >18, which would mean the correct formula is min((max((18, p1, p2)), R)) Michael KayReceived on Monday, 5 April 2004 12:36:28 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:19 UTC
*