> I don't understand > how the OCAML entries got this test right, ... > OCAML 6.12303176911e-17 I should have mentioned that this was OCAML 2.02. I just downloaded 3.0 and indeed, it prints the result as zero. So now OCAML and SML/NJ agree the result is zero, while everyone else thinks the result is 6.123E-17.