RE: Strange result with exponents...

> 1152921504606846976 is the correct answer. V4R4 got it right both ways,
> V5R1 got it right, even Windows calculator gets it right regardless of
> the way you get there, via direct exponentiation or simple repetitive
> multiplication or running through successive powers of two.
>
> But now the new, improved V5R2 gets it wrong? This seems to be going in
> the wrong direction.

What's odd, to me, is that the exponent operator doesn't seem to work the
same way that the others do.  I can do addition or multiplication to a 30p
0 field, and not run into problems when it gets above 17 digits -- but
with exponents, the same field runs into problems.  That's not intuitive,
even if it's documented.

Furthermore, as you mentioned, it used to work.  And it does work
everywhere else.   Maybe that's luck, but heck, it's the same number!
Unless you're intimately familiar with how the microcode works, you're
likely to expect it to work the same way.

FWIW, it also works just fine in dc.  (The Unix "desktop calculator"
program)  But then, dc works with VERY large numbers (I can do
calculations that return numbers so large that they fill up an 80x25 xterm
window...)

But, I guess that's getting kinda far from the topic.