17 Oct
2011
17 Oct
'11
5:40 a.m.
Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 05:10:55PM -0500, Jules
Richardson wrote:
Heh :-) I did think of mentioning that - but it's only in the extended
ASCII set, isn't it?
Fred Cisin wrote:
such as: ? I never understood the populrity of that
approximation.
31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164 /
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
is more accurate.
If you encode the digits using something with more scope than
characters 0..9, there's a lot less to memorize. ;-)