I went out to 11 digits and found that %2 was usually a lot more correct than &1, and I didn't have to do it millions of times and use a timer just to be able to notice. q-:
- tye
In reply to Re^2: &1 is no faster than %2 when checking for oddness. Oh well. (range)
by tye
in thread &1 is no faster than %2 when checking for oddness. Oh well.
by diotalevi
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |