Hi Dave, | Note that I'd recommend getting some clarification about this from either | the current hugs team or Mark Jones (who are probably reading this list), | as I can vaguely recall a couple of times over the last few years where | Mark Jone has said `Hugs should not be used for serious numerical work' | without saying whether this is fixed just by that #define. There are two issues. First, Gofer (from which Hugs was later derived) was not written with numerical work in mind: I am wise enough to know that great care must be taken in numerical work to obtain accurate results, but I was not (nor am I still) wise enough to know exactly what is required. Frankly, numerical computation was never a priority in the development of Gofer; fitting it onto an old 8086 seemed challenge enough. Second, Hugs uses single precision by default because the implementation using double precision relies on a hack whose behavior is not assured in any way by the C language in which it is implemented. It does work just fine on many machines, but I would be wary about depending on it, and hence I wouldn't encourage its use as the default. Hope this helps! All the best, Mark