From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!dual!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Getting the integer part of a real
Message-ID: <240@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 17:12:31 EST
Article-I.D.: cartan.240
Posted: Mon Nov 10 17:12:31 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Nov-86 06:23:40 EST
References: <38000034@gypsy.UUCP> <996@wayback.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms (David desJardins)
Followup-To: comp.lang
Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <996@wayback.UUCP> arny@wayback.UUCP (Arny B. Engelson) writes:
>The above algorithm only works for POSITIVE values of X!  For example, if
>X = -0.7 this will return -1 instead of 0.  The "integer part of a real
>number" is a truncate function:

   Not to restart the flame wars (I hope!), but when this topic has been
discussed in the past, the consensus (at least among mathematicians) has
been that "round-down" is preferable to "round-toward-zero."  At the very
least it is not clear that the latter is preferable.

   -- David desJardins