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.

This code

`9E99ֿ¹`

takes 12 bars and 4 pixels. Whereas:

`9E‾99`

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?

λ *James Kanjo*

_{Blog | Wikidot Expert | λ and Proud
Web Developer | HTML | CSS | JavaScript}