Martin Donk
Martin Donk
@gunnarmein, I'll look into this. These precision issues have been a pain and part of it is self-inflicted. The library started off as a simple evaluator with some symbolic capabilities...
Sounds fair. I can't think of any issues this would create. I'll update this behavior.
@menzelths the biggest problem I see is that after the conversion to the decimal number, there's really no way of know how the number was input. All number are treated...
@menzelths This has been implemented on dev. To round only the coefficient, the second argument has to be negative so for instance ```javascript var x = nerdamer('round(1.23423534e-12,-2)'); console.log(x.text()); ``` Is...
@Happypig375 The negative sign is just to signal to round that the coefficient should be rounded. Not the whole number. >2nd parameter (-n) means (n+1) significant figures I don't understand...
@menzelths, There currently is no way to tell the library to return the result in scientific notation. I guess I can create a function called **scientific** and do something like:...
>Please change all the above Noes to Yeses. Ok. I'll try to to get to this as soon as possible. >Maybe split them more into docs, demo, meta, source-code, unit-tests,...
Documenting operators moved to this issue
@cauefcr, sorry for the late reply. I'm a little confused as to what's going on and what's expected. Can you provide the algorithm so we can maybe start there?
@Happypig375 Thank you for this awesome gem. It's very thorough and shows that you've given this issue a lot of thought. It's funny that you bring up the issue of...