This project is read-only.
1

Closed

Not tested for numbers in Scientific Notation

description

I only realised this morning that I've not accounted for one possibility in data. That is the use of Scientific Notation, for example "+1.e17".
Closed Aug 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM by AdamDavidHill
Fixed with ChangeSet 4898. The fix is to allow numbers in Scientific notation to pass through rather than reduce their accuracy. My reasoning here is that they're already abbreviated, and shortening may result in visual disturbance out of proportion to simple double rounding. Let me know if there's a better way.

comments

AdamDavidHill wrote Aug 4, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Fixed with ChangeSet 4898. The fix is to allow numbers in Scientific notation to pass through rather than reduce their accuracy. My reasoning here is that they're already abbreviated, and shortening may result in visual disturbance out of proportion to simple double rounding. Let me know if there's a better way.

wrote Aug 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

wrote Feb 13, 2013 at 6:41 PM

wrote May 16, 2013 at 2:05 AM