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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00,
	FROM_WORDY,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,28396555259c7864,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: William Dale Jr <William.Dale.Jr@lmco.com>
Subject: AQS95 floatin point relational tests
Date: 1997/03/10
Message-ID: <33241A3A.191B@lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 224507827
Organization: V1-80 Missiles & Space
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Phil Thornely quite reasonably questions the recommendations in AQ&S with
> respect to floating-point comparisons. We have already had an extended
> CLA thread on this topic, and the conclusion was that the AQ&S recommendations
> here are badly flawed and should be ignored.

Do you mean that the guidline is flawed or that the language is flawed?
Is there a FAQ on this issue I can read offline?

-- 
================================
William L. Dale       								
n2rhv@amsat.org   (home-pageless)  
================================