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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,183ebe04e93f0506 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: fixed point vs floating point Date: 1997/12/04 Message-ID: <348716B2.5050@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 295311930 References: <3485A850.3A92@gsg.eds.com> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I'd have to double check whether it's been fixed in Ada 95, but it used to be that you had to define fixed point types with a range slightly larger than the intended range in order to ensure that the arithmetic model mapped properly into the problem domain. Matthew Heaney wrote: > > In article <3485A850.3A92@gsg.eds.com>, nospam@gsg.eds.com wrote: > > >Is it perfect? No. But it's no worse than the anomlies in Ada fixed > >point, and those are managable. > > I'm confused. What fixed point anomalies in Ada are you refering to? Can > you elaborate? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Matthew Heaney > Software Development Consultant > > (818) 985-1271 -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org