OK, this just seems so terribly horribly inefficient, I cannot help trying to push for more explanation. I get physically unwell when I see people doing numerical calculations by converting to strings 
4 Likes
Guys,
as mentioned on rep #5, I already have some way to do this.
the purpose is actually to avoid converting to string : though “chop” does not give us the option to do so, so beside i’m now looking into remdiv() as a more efficient way to get whats needed.
(with or without string conv…)
Thanks to all !
Glad you’re making progress! From experience, on this forum it is most useful and efficient to state the exact problem you want to solve. In this case, if your end-goal was to end up with numbers as strings, great! But it seems like that wasn’t the case, and the whole procedure ended up taking a different turn…
This post (and your other one about divrem) seem like a case of the XY problem. So it’s best to just as for what you really want, rather than what you think will take you further on the path to what you really want.
Just my two cents!
1 Like
the post #5 discribed it fully. at the time I didnt know if remdiv was even going to be usefull, and didnt want to mix both function usage in the same post.
remdiv just appears to be a lil bit faster now, still, though i havent chopped the 2nd param (remainer) which is what is left to be done…and might involve…again, string convertion !
so its too soon - for me - to come to a conclusion about that
…my 2,5 cents !
Ok, well I’m happy I was able to help!
There is pretty much never a reason to do any number manipulations through strings, so I quite hope you find another way…
True, I’ve read quite some remarks about why not doing so recently, actually, its quite a surprise to see such a distinction between strings and numbers (starting with their use in functions)… but thats how it works so far …