World: r3wp

that will mostly be IEEE floating point definition

I did not find an easier way, so I parse for E, then I distinguish 
the sign, the number -5 in above case, and then I compose the string 
:-)

Maybe there is some nice and elegant solution via dunno what - debase/base 
or some other conversions, or struct, dunno - I am not really expert 
here :-)

numbers on linux look more sane, so i guess its the os (or Carl hates 
windows?!;). althought it should not be to hard to take code from 
bsd-lib. math is ieee AFAIK.

I know carl deivated a little bit from the IEEE spec in the past 
to make things a little more neewbie friendly

no the same will happen with perl on windows

did you think that the internal type conversion may be the reason 
?

what would you think about something like "###.##e##".

they call the same underlying math libs

Volker - what is that? :-)

AFAIK he derived by comparisions, not the math itself?

hmmm propagating bad design

well it would be the display routines that are mangling not the math

#
 is a digit, gives numbers like 123.45e67

I know Volker, but what with that? Kind of templating/masking? Or 
what do you mean?

how about using that for a pad-function?

if BCD was decided to be replaced by other solution, maybe we should 
ask Ladislav to comment a bit what will happen in that regard?

hmm, i see its a path. so [pad n ###.##] would work without quotes 
:)

its path -> is issue

maybe it should be a dialect

there  is front middle and bacl padding

pad list [","]

for a comma seperated list

Pekr: "I did not find an easier way, so I parse for E, then I distinguish 
the sign, the number -5 in above case, and then I compose the string 
:-)"
!> a: 123.456 reduce[to integer! a remainder a 1]
== [123 0.456000000000003]

Maybe the base for something better (dont know how easy that parsing 
is?)

dunno ... you simply has some computation, it returns the result 
... and result may be something like 1 / 100, and you suddenly end-up 
with 1E-2, now what to do with that?

split in integer and fraction, pad integer, do something with fraction, 
join them.

fraction could be rounded, then copy/part.

Petr: <I wrote generalised solution in the past.>
Is that published?

Eric Long also did some nice work on a format.r function....I'm trying 
to find out if it is still available to the public (I have a copy 
of it)

I have my own function currently for that, it is just I dont find 
1E-2 really usefully for anything, or just maybe form should be tweaked 
to form decimals in their full representation ...

http://www.nwlink.com/~ecotope1/index.r?

ncie, rebol indexes our index.r's :) and word-browser was great to 
find "remainder".

short enough? http://polly.rebol.it/test/test/snippets/epad1.r

Looks good, Volker.
One problem: more than 9 leading zeroes:
 epad1 0 10 0
** Math Error: Math or number overflow

(There is a much larger limit on trailing zeroes after the decimal 
sign)

tricky. hmm, money should have a bigger scope?

Nine *should* be enough for most people -- I didn't have a specific 
case in mind. I was just testing the limits.

testing is good :)

Yep, money is worth its -erm, punning here.. adds more digits. (uploaded)

14 leading zeroes is probably enough for anyone :-)
One bug?
 epad1 0.09 1 2
== "0.90"   ;; 10 times too large!

thanks. will look at that.

forgot to pad remainder to. so 0.09 * 100 -> 9 . should be 09 so 
that appending 0s works. but got another bug-description on linux. 
there it is fixed.

i need to make a function wich can take n optional arguments, n can 
be from 1 to many arguments any help

I think Ladislav has done some work on this.

Otherwise supply it as a block :)

i whas thinking about the block option it seems more acurrate

supply it as a block
 is the proper solution I think

btw - what you think of following? - normally we can access paths 
in several ways ... block/5 (fifth element), block/literal (literal 
element), block/(expression) (expressionn to evaluate). Nonexistant 
elements do return 'none. But try block/("some string") - it returns 
error. Now the question is, if this is correct/consistent with other 
ways of how we access block elements, or not?

Question: <Unix Time>..   I found several functions on the web that 
show you how to create a unix-timestamp from a rebol time (now). 
 However, I am looking for the ability to convert a unix-timestamp 
back into rebol-time.  I started writing my own function but I think 
that leap-years might mess me up.  Anyone have any thought on the 
matter?

!> now + to-time 1e6
== 23-Oct-2005/13:26:16+2:00

i guess you can refine that for conversion. a unix-timestamp is an 
integer based on some date?

1/1/1970 0:00:00