GitLab

Detail:
  The BASIC64 number formatting code was found to be significantly different to the BASIC105 formatting code, and a potential source of compatibility issues due to the various bugs and quirks it seemed to contain
  To resolve this, the BASIC105 number formatting code has been resurrected and adapted to allow it to be used by both BASIC105 and BASIC64
  The formatting code still uses BCD internally, so accuracy will be the same as BASIC 1.65. It's just the formatting discrepancies (for both BASIC versions) which will have been affected.
  MAXDIGS has also been revised again; the +2 is no longer required (was a BASIC64 quirk), so BASIC105 is down to 11 (up from 10 in pre-1.65 versions) and BASIC64 has reverted to the historic value of 18 (which is technically one more than necessary)
  File changes:
  s/fp2 - Updated as described above
  Tests/Math/AtPercent,ffb - New test program which compares the E/F/G number formatting code against a (BASIC105-style) reference model for the number formatting implemented in BASIC
Admin:
  Tested on Raspberry Pi
  Fixes issue reported on forums:
  https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/4/topics/9199


Version 1.66. Tagged as 'BASIC-1_66'