[log in to unmask]" type="cite">I had noticed that for numbers in the range 0 < number < 10 that there was no "e" and one had to test for this case.On 26/08/2015 00:44, aparsloe wrote:(2) Using \fp_to_scientific:n on the result of an l3fp calculation produces, say, 6.023e23. I want to write this as 6.023 \times 10^{23}, but the "e" of 6.023e23 doesn't have its "usual" catcode so \tl_replace_once:Nnn doesn't find the "e". (I presume "e" has catcode "other" -- I haven't checked.) Hence I rescan 6.023e23 with an empty setup and then use \tl_replace_once:Nnn (which now does find the "e").Your question has prompted us to take another look at \fp_to_scientific:n/\fp_to_tl:n. The catcode of "e" is clearly not expected here: I'm going to adjust to produce a 'letter'. We are wondering about the wider use case for \fp_to_scientific:n: as it stands the code doesn't *always* produce a number of the for [-]<digits>.<digits>e[-]<digits> so it can't be parsed without some testing. That's little different to \fp_to_tl:n, which in many ways might be more generally useful. Can you fill us in on your use? Joseph P.S. Something seems to be up with your system/e-mail date settings: all of your mail is from the future!
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|