That's good to know and kind of dangerous. I have seen banking regulators getting upset in the past because of roundings not following the usual convention ("banker's rounding"). You will have a hard time explaining it's an unexpected behaviour of some programming language rather than the management of the bank trying to be cute with the numbers.
Banker's rounding is "round to even", because it limits the amount of bias introduced by the rounding.
> But I know the regulator will expect round(0.5) = 1, not 0.
That's not necessarily the most helpful, as there's at least two tie-breakings which provide that, but differ in their treatment of negative numbers (round up or round to +∞, and round away from zero or round to ∞).
I have seen banking regulators getting upset because they (effectively) assumed infinite precision until the "final rounding" (their verbiage). This was at a major financial services provider with exactly zero numerical stability analysts.
