> Rex, that's a very simple and completely understandable limitation.

> However, for me this just reinforces the idea that this limitation

> should be documented (as a reminder) where you state "The maximum size

> is 20,000 digits (10,000 digits to the left of the decimal point and

> 10,000 decimal places).", because it makes that statement much less

> meaningful! Specifically, if I understand you correctly (and I believe

> I do), this means that you can't effectively feed the output of one

> very-many-significant-digit calculation into a subsequent calculation

> because there is no place to hold the result of the first calculation

> to feed into the second calculation. And in how many circumstances

> would one have a calculation that creates that many significant digits

> without wanting to the results into a further calculation? (I know you

> can do such things as display the square root of two to 10,000 decimal

> places, but I don't think that's too useful. In my case, I was testing

> an iterative (not recursive, it approaches PI very quickly and

> asymptotically) algorithm to calculate PI to as many as I could

> generate decimal places, and I wanted to compare its output to very-

> many-significant-digit representations of PI that are freely available

> on the web to test the iterative algorithm's accuracy. Not too useful

> either, I'll be the first to admit, but doing that kind of thing is

> kind of a low-level hobby for me.)