Re^2: Simple calculation.

Hint: Retaining .05 precision in tick marks distributed over a range of 900+ doesn't make much sense.

The kind of output I'm looking for for that example is:

1,123,345,400 1,123,346,500 1,123,345,600 1,123,345,600 1,123,345,700 
+1,123,345,800 1,123,345,900 1,123,346,000 1,123,346,100 1,123,346,200
+ 1,123,346,300 1,123,346,400
[download]

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Comment on Re^2: Simple calculation. Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Simple calculation. by Anonymous Monk on May 09, 2015 at 10:26 UTC
Hint: Retaining .05 precision in tick marks distributed over a range of 900+ doesn't make much sense. Makes perfect sense to me. I just thought that getting 8.721 as max is strange when the real max is 8.672. I actually thought your 'not so nice!' refers to that. I don't know how to produce "aethetically pleasing" numbers, sorry.	[reply]
Re^4: Simple calculation. by Anonymous Monk on May 09, 2015 at 12:46 UTC
Hmmm, BUK, you need approximately the number of ticks specified or the precise number? You said "Here, by inspection, we can conclude that the 'best' tick marks would probably be 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09. But that's only 8 ticks..." Is 8 ticks alright or do you need exactly 10? I was thinking about that and it's actually possible to produce 0.02, 0.03 .. 0.09 (and other "pretty" numbers like that), but I find your requirements not very clear, to be honest.	[reply]