Is there a reliable way in JavaScript to obtain the number of decimal places of an arbitrary number?

decimal, floating-point, fractions, javascript, precision

Solution

Historical note: the comment thread below may refer to first and second implementations. I swapped the order in September 2017 since leading with a buggy implementation caused confusion.

If you want something that maps `"0.1e-100"` to 101, then you can try something like

function decimalPlaces(n) {
  // Make sure it is a number and use the builtin number -> string.
  var s = "" + (+n);
  // Pull out the fraction and the exponent.
  var match = /(?:\.(\d+))?(?:[eE]([+\-]?\d+))?$/.exec(s);
  // NaN or Infinity or integer.
  // We arbitrarily decide that Infinity is integral.
  if (!match) { return 0; }
  // Count the number of digits in the fraction and subtract the
  // exponent to simulate moving the decimal point left by exponent places.
  // 1.234e+2 has 1 fraction digit and '234'.length -  2 == 1
  // 1.234e-2 has 5 fraction digit and '234'.length - -2 == 5
  return Math.max(
      0,  // lower limit.
      (match[1] == '0' ? 0 : (match[1] || '').length)  // fraction length
      - (match[2] || 0));  // exponent
}

According to the spec, any solution based on the builtin number->string conversion can only be accurate to 21 places beyond the exponent.

9.8.1 ToString Applied to the Number Type

- Otherwise, let n, k, and s be integers such that k ≥ 1, 10k−1 ≤ s < 10k, the Number value for s × 10n−k is m, and k is as small as possible. Note that k is the number of digits in the decimal representation of s, that s is not divisible by 10, and that the least significant digit of s is not necessarily uniquely determined by these criteria.

- If k ≤ n ≤ 21, return the String consisting of the k digits of the decimal representation of s (in order, with no leading zeroes), followed by n−k occurrences of the character ‘0’.

- If 0 < n ≤ 21, return the String consisting of the most significant n digits of the decimal representation of s, followed by a decimal point ‘.’, followed by the remaining k−n digits of the decimal representation of s.

- If −6 < n ≤ 0, return the String consisting of the character ‘0’, followed by a decimal point ‘.’, followed by −n occurrences of the character ‘0’, followed by the k digits of the decimal representation of s.

Historical note: The implementation below is problematic. I leave it here as context for the comment thread.

Based on the definition of `Number.prototype.toFixed`, it seems like the following should work but due to the IEEE-754 representation of double values, certain numbers will produce false results. For example, `decimalPlaces(0.123)` will return `20`.

function decimalPlaces(number) {
  // toFixed produces a fixed representation accurate to 20 decimal places
  // without an exponent.
  // The ^-?\d*\. strips off any sign, integer portion, and decimal point
  // leaving only the decimal fraction.
  // The 0+$ strips off any trailing zeroes.
  return ((+number).toFixed(20)).replace(/^-?\d*\.?|0+$/g, '').length;
}

// The OP's examples:
console.log(decimalPlaces(5555.0));  // 0
console.log(decimalPlaces(5555));  // 0
console.log(decimalPlaces(555.5));  // 1
console.log(decimalPlaces(555.50));  // 1
console.log(decimalPlaces(0.0000005));  // 7
console.log(decimalPlaces(5e-7));  // 7
console.log(decimalPlaces(0.00000055));  // 8
console.log(decimalPlaces(5e-8));  // 8
console.log(decimalPlaces(0.123));  // 20 (!)

Problem

It's important to note that I'm not looking for a rounding function. I am looking for a function that returns the number of decimal places in an arbitrary number's simplified decimal representation. That is, we have the following: ``` decimalPlaces(5555.0); //=> 0 decimalPlaces(5555); //=> 0 decimalPlaces(555.5); //=> 1 decimalPlaces(555.50); //=> 1 decimalPlaces(0.0000005); //=> 7 decimalPlaces(5e-7); //=> 7 decimalPlaces(0.00000055); //=> 8 decimalPlaces(5.5e-7); //=> 8 ``` My first instinct was to use the string representations: split on `'.'`, then on `'e-'`, and do the math, like so (the example is verbose): ``` function decimalPlaces(number) { var parts = number.toString().split('.', 2), integerPart = parts[0], decimalPart = parts[1], exponentPart; if (integerPart.charAt(0) === '-') { integerPart = integerPart.substring(1); } if (decimalPart !== undefined) { parts = decimalPart.split('e-', 2); decimalPart = parts[0]; } else { parts = integerPart.split('e-', 2); integerPart = parts[0]; } exponentPart = parts[1]; if (exponentPart !== undefined) { return integerPart.length + (decimalPart !== undefined ? decimalPart.length : 0) - 1 + parseInt(exponentPart); } else { return decimalPart !== undefined ? decimalPart.length : 0; } } ``` For my examples above, this function works. However, I'm not satisfied until I've tested every possible value, so I busted out `Number.MIN_VALUE`. ``` Number.MIN_VALUE; //=> 5e-324 decimalPlaces(Number.MIN_VALUE); //=> 324 Number.MIN_VALUE * 100; //=> 4.94e-322 decimalPlaces(Number.MIN_VALUE * 100); //=> 324 ``` This looked reasonable at first, but then on a double take I realized that `5e-324 * 10` should be `5e-323`! And then it hit me: I'm dealing with the effects of quantization of very small numbers. Not only are numbers being quantized before storage; additionally, some numbers stored in binary have unreasonably long decimal representations, so their decimal representations are being truncated. This is unfortunate for me, because it means that I can't get at their true decimal precision using their string representations. So I come to you, StackOverflow community. Does anyone among you know a reliable way to get at a number's true post-decimal-point precision? The purpose of this function, should anyone ask, is for use in another function that converts a float into a simplified fraction (that is, it returns the relatively coprime integer numerator and nonzero natural denominator). The only missing piece in this outer function is a reliable way to determine the number of decimal places in the float so I can multiply it by the appropriate power of 10. Hopefully I'm overthinking it.

Original source