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=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9c6cb042c6c5955f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: Does Ada95 beat FORTRAN?!?
Date: 1996/04/22
Message-ID: <317BEC5C.237C228A@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 150862017
references: <00001a73+00002ce8@msn.com> <317906B6.42853EF6@cpmx.saic.com>
 <dewar.830136560@schonberg>
cc: dewar@gnat.com
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
Date: 1996-04-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Here is one respect in which Ada 95 is clearly superior to Fortran
> for numerical applications. In Ada 95, there are accuracy requirements
> for the trig functions, there are no such requirements in Ada 95.

This should read more like,
"In Ada 95, there are accuracy requirements for the trig functions,
 there are no such requirements in Fortran".

Robert asked me to post this correction for him, as he is temporarily
away from an internet terminal. Apparently he has trouble bringing
himself to type "the F word". :-)

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |