Strange counter-performance in an alternative `decimalLength9` function

[Bruce Carneal]

On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 17:11:48 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 15:29:02 UTC, Bruce Carneal 
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 08:52:09 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> I will post my code if there is any meaningful difference in 
>> your subsequent results.
>
> give me something I can compile and verify. I'm not there to 
> steal, if you found something you can still propose it to the 
> repos that would take advantage of the optim.

I'm not at all concerned about theft of trivial code.  I am 
concerned that a simple error in my code will live on in a 
copy/paste environment.

Regardless, I'll post the code once I get home.  It may be the 
only way to communicate the central problem as I see it: 
imprecision in the test specification (the input specification).