Got rid of the "…negative exponents rather than finding the inverse of a positive one" part since 5E2ֿ¹ != 5E‾2 (the example code) and I don't see what the intended optimization could have been.
Firstly, 5E2ֿ¹ does equal 5E‾2. This is because E2 is calculated first, then the inverse is calculated.
As with the intended optimisation was that the code is executed much faster. Just thinking about this is obvious because calculating a power of ten then its inverse is really two functions, whereas calculating a negative power of 10 does the same thing in ONE function.
takes 12 bars and 4 pixels. Whereas:
takes 7 bars and 3 pixels. See timings if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Seeing as the expr( command demonstrated a similar "optimisation", I thought it was relevant to include in this page.
Does the rest of the community feel this optimisation should be included on this page?